July 2, 2025 • 46 mins
What if your birth certificate isn't just a record of your birth, but a powerful commercial instrument that defines your relationship with money, taxes, and even your own identity? Dr. Don Kalam, with his background in business and law, offers a provocative reframing of American society that challenges our fundamental understanding of how the system works—and who it works for.
Kalam presents the United States not primarily as a democracy, but as a republic designed to foster entrepreneurship as the default path to prosperity. The birth certificate, printed on bank note paper, creates what he calls a "United States person"—a commercial entity separate from your natural self. Most Americans unknowingly merge these two identities, while the wealthy maintain rigorous separation, allowing them to control vast assets without directly owning them.
This perspective illuminates why figures like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg establish foundations that receive profits from their companies—embodying Kalam's central wealth philosophy: "Own nothing, control everything." By operating through trusts and using Employer Identification Numbers rather than Social Security Numbers, the financially savvy create protective barriers between personal and business liabilities while practicing legal tax avoidance.
The implications extend beyond personal finance into education and employment. Kalam suggests conventional schooling predominantly produces employees rather than entrepreneurs, a system he claims was deliberately designed by industrial magnates. As automation accelerates, intelligence (creating systems) trumps skill (performing tasks), making entrepreneurial thinking increasingly essential for financial security.
Whether you find Kalam's interpretations revolutionary or controversial, his framework offers a coherent explanation for the persistence of wealth inequality and provides actionable strategies for rethinking your relationship with commercial systems. The question remains: what might change if this supposedly elite knowledge became widely understood and implemented across society?
https://www.skool.com/donkilam/about
FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - DON KILAM
GO GET HIS BOOK ON AMAZON NOW!
https://www.amazon.com/Cant-Touch-This-Diplomatic-Immunity/dp/B09X1FXMNQ
https://www.skool.com/donkilam/about
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Have you ever, you know, looked at your birth
certificate or maybe your socialsecurity card and just wondered
is there something deeper goingon here?
What if these documents, thesethings we just take for granted,
actually held the key to, well,a totally different way of
engaging with the world, a waythat could fundamentally
redefine how you relate to money, taxes, even your own identity?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
It's a pretty radical thought, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (00:24):
It really is, and today we're taking a deep dive
into exactly that kind ofthinking.
We're looking at an intriguingand, honestly, pretty
provocative perspective from DonKalam over at Dream Keepers
Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Right Don Kalam.
He holds a doctorate inbusiness and law, which is an
important context here.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Definitely, and he presents this really compelling,
sometimes controversial, viewof the United States.
He argues it's fundamentally acommercial jurisdiction.
So our mission today is tounpack those arguments.
We want to explore thesurprising nuggets of knowledge
he pulls out from common legalstuff, financial concepts, and
help you understand what thisunique lens might mean for how
(01:02):
you approach your own financiallife.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yeah, We'll be touching on everything, from the
paper your birth certificate isprinted on, apparently to the
sophisticated strategies thesuper wealthy use.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
All through this very specific entrepreneur-focused
framework that Kalam argues iswell the real blueprint for
success.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
So the material we're digging into.
It comes from two main talks byDon Kalam.
One's called Commerce, birthCertificates, trade Names and
Social Security Numbers, and theother is Natural versus Legal
Person Wealth ManagementStrategies.
And it's really crucial, as youlisten, to remember these are
Don Kalam's interpretations,they're his viewpoints, shaped
(01:42):
by his background in businessand law.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Absolutely.
We're here as guides, right?
We're navigating his specificideas impartially, not endorsing
them, just laying them out soyou can consider them critically
and, hopefully, become betterinformed.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Exactly, it's about understanding his perspective.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Okay, so let's unpack this.
Don Kalam kicks things off witha foundational claim, and this
really sets the stage for welleverything else he talks about.
He argues that the UnitedStates just isn't what most
people think it is, andunderstanding its true nature
fundamentally changes how weshould see our place in it.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Right, it's a big opening statement.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
So what exactly is this foundational claim?
How does he redefine ourunderstanding of, you know, the
very fabric of our society?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Well, he's very emphatic about this.
Don Kalam asserts that the USis, at its core, a capitalist
society.
Specifically, he stresses, it'sa republic, like it says in the
Constitution.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Not a democracy or socialist.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Exactly.
He says it's not a democracy orsocialist society and he argues
that many people misunderstandthis basic distinction and that
misunderstanding it can reallyhit your financial well-being.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
OK, so republic versus democracy.
Why is that so critical in hisview?
Is it just semantics?
Speaker 2 (02:52):
For Kalam it's definitely not just semantics,
it's a critical legal,structural reality.
He believes this wholeRepublican structure inherently
fosters a what he calls alaissez-faire environment.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Laissez-faire Okay, free market.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Yeah, Basically a free market system, One where
enterprise is encouraged, wherethe opportunities for
individuals to open businessesare well supposed to be
plentiful.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
So starting a business is encouraged.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Highly encouraged.
He talks about setting upstatutory public entities like a
normal corporation or even moreprivate entities, and he makes
the point that the barriers toentry are often, you know,
surprisingly minimal.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Like setting up an LLC.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Right.
He gives the example of LLCcosts, even in a place like
Illinois, where he says it mightbe what?
$600.
He frames that as a manageableinvestment for what he sees as
the default path to success here.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
The default path.
Wow, so not being anentrepreneur is a disadvantage.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
A significant disadvantage, in his view.
It's like trying to swimupstream, he suggests.
He believes that if you're notprepared to open a business in
this society, you're missing thepoint almost.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
And he connects this to how fast things change, too
right.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Yeah, he uses that to illustrate the dynamic nature
of this commercial environment.
He points out think about thelast 20 years no Google Maps, no
Facebook, no YouTube back then,ah good point.
He argues.
This constant churn is clearevidence of a landscape just
ripe with entrepreneurialopportunities, but only for
those who actually understandand adapt to its commercial
(04:23):
nature.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
That's a really powerful reframing.
So if we're operating in thiscapitalist republic, this
commercial jurisdiction, whatdoes Kalam say that means for
our day-to-day life, like evenour ID documents?
Does it impact us right frombirth?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Oh, absolutely.
Kalam takes that foundationalidea and pushes it further.
He asserts that simply by beingborn in the United States, you
are quote born into a commercialjurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Born into it.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Born right into it and he's very clear.
This isn't some secret thegovernment's hiding.
He says it's just the realityand it's your responsibility,
the individual's responsibility,to understand it and,
critically, to teach it to yourfamily.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
OK, so how do we understand it?
He has an analogy right.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Yeah, he calls it the rule of the environment.
It's pretty simple, likegravity you jump up, you come
back down, it's inevitable.
He says.
Understanding the commercialrules here in the US is just
like that.
It's essential for wellsurvival and success within this
environment.
You have to know the rules ofthe game and the purpose of the
(05:26):
game.
In his, let's say, starkperspective, the fundamental
purpose of this whole system isto make money period Wow Blunt.
Very blunt.
He doesn't mince words.
He basically says if you don'tgrasp this commercial reality
and engage with it, you're goingto end up broke.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
So much for the last will be first.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
He addresses that directly.
He says that idea is spiritual,maybe applicable only in heaven
, but not here, not on thisplanet.
Here you have to understand andplay by the established
commercial rules if you wantmaterial success.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
So recognizing this commercial nature is key, more
important than otheraffiliations.
He believes, so he believes sohe argues, it overrides personal
feelings, nationalistic pride,even religious beliefs when it
comes to achieving prosperity inthe material world.
(06:16):
It's all about the commercialjurisdiction.
Ok, so if we're born into thiscommercial system and success
means understanding its rules,then our very first documents
must have some kind ofcommercial weight right.
What about the birthcertificate?
It seems pretty straightforward.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Ah.
But that's where Kalam reallyshifts the perspective.
He argues it's not just asimple record of birth.
He sees it as a foundationalcommercial document, like the
very first contract in yourcommercial life.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
The first contract how?
Speaker 2 (06:41):
He gets specific.
He points out that birthcertificates are printed on and
he calls it this specificallyAmerican banknote paper.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Like money paper.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Exactly, and he insists this is not an accident,
it's a deliberate symbol.
It signifies that we live in aquote certificate-based society,
a society built entirely oncontracts.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Huh Are other documents like this too.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
He mentions marriage certificates as another example
falling into this category ofcommercial instruments, but the
birth certificate is the firstone.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
And what does it do commercially speaking?
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Kalam asserts that issuing a birth certificate
actually creates what he calls aUnited States person.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
A United States person, not just me.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Not the natural flesh and blood.
You know he explicitly definesthis US person as a commercial
entity.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
An entity, yeah, like a company.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Sort of His logic is look, the United States itself
is fundamentally a commercialentity, right?
Speaker 1 (07:36):
In his view, yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
So any person created by its foundational documents
within its jurisdiction mustalso be, by extension, a
commercial entity.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Wow, Okay.
So that simple piece of paperbecomes this huge commercial
instrument from day one.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Exactly.
It lays the groundwork for yourentire commercial engagement
with the jurisdiction, bindingyou into its system of contracts
and obligations right from thestart.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
That's a lot to take in about a birth certificate.
So if that's our firstcommercial contract, what about
the other identity things we use, like trade names and the big
one, social security numbers?
What's their commercial roleand what about our liability?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Right.
This leads directly intopersonal accountability within
this commercial framework he'sdescribing.
Kalam really stresses thatunderstanding these commercial
laws is crucial.
If you don't, he says, you'reinevitably going to have a bad
relationship with thejurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Makes sense if you're breaking rules you don't know
exist.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Precisely so.
Building on the birthcertificate idea, he explains
that trade names are alsofundamentally based off of
contracts.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
What counts as a trade name, my business name.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
That, yes, but he defines it more broadly Any name
you use in commerce could beyour given name when you use it
for business, a specificbusiness name, even like a pen
name, if you're writingcommercially.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
So any name used for business is a commercial name.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
In his view, yes, because the US is a commercial
jurisdiction, any name usedwithin it for business purposes
automatically becomes acommercial name purposes
automatically becomes acommercial name.
He even suggests you couldconsciously choose to stop using
your natural name commerciallyand operate solely under a
commercial name.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Interesting.
Ok, now Social Security numbers.
Most people think those aremandatory right, you need one
for everything.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
That's the common assumption, but Kalam challenges
it.
He offers a pretty strikingperspective here.
He tells stories, personalanecdotes, about well-off
friends he knew even back inhigh school, who apparently
didn't have SSNs.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Really, how do they manage?
Speaker 2 (09:32):
He doesn't detail that, but uses it to suggest
that having an SSN isn't thisabsolute, unavoidable
requirement for living andsucceeding here.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
So he sees it like the birth certificate, a
commercial tool.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Exactly.
He views SSNs as commercialinstruments, just like birth
certificates.
And here's the key part heasserts that individuals
fundamentally have a choice toeither use or not use them,
especially when it comes toconducting business.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
A choice.
That's a huge claim.
Most people feel like they haveto use their SSN for jobs banks
.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
He acknowledges that's the common practice but
frames it as potentiallyuninformed participation in the
system.
He suggests the informed personmight operate differently.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
OK, but he also talks about the history of the SSN
right.
Why were they introduced ifthey weren't always around?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Yes, he provides a fascinating, though maybe
controversial, historical take.
He claims that before, say,1913, or maybe 1933, people
didn't have SSNs.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
The taxes existed before then.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Right.
So his argument is what changed?
He contends these instruments,SSNs included, were specifically
put in place to hold the legalperson, that commercial entity
we talked about, accountable Tomake sure debts got paid in a
system increasingly focused oncommerce.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
So it wasn't about taxing individuals directly.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
He links it back further very provocatively to
the US separation from England.
He claims that split wasprimarily driven by a desire to
avoid personal taxes imposed bythe crown.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Huh, I haven't heard that specific angle before.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
He argues the goal was to set up a society where
entities, trusts, corporations,etc.
Were the primary players,encouraging charity and managing
public good through privatemeans rather than direct
personal taxation.
He points to things likecolleges, hospitals, saying many
were started through privateendowments.
Part of this entity drivencharity based system.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
OK, so the SSN fits into that as a tool for entity
accountability.
Ok, so the SSN fits into thatas a tool for entity
accountability.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
That's his framing.
It's for commercialaccountability, managing debt
within this specific framework,and this leads him to ask the
critical questions aboutliability.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Like.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Like who's liable when you use that SSN?
Who is on the hook?
Is the government somehowbacking your debt?
Does it disappear if youdeclare bankruptcy using your
SSN?
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Hmm, tricky questions , and he mentioned something
about double bookkeeping.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Yes, backing your debt?
Does it disappear if youdeclare bankruptcy using your
SSN?
Tricky questions.
And he mentioned somethingabout double bookkeeping.
Yes, he introduces this idea ofdouble bookkeeping with the
county.
He doesn't fully flesh out themechanics and the source
material we reviewed, but theimplication is there's some kind
of parallel financial recordkeeping going on.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
A separate ledger for your legal person.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Something like that A less visible account where your
legal person interactsfinancially with the
jurisdiction building up thiscommercial record, these
obligations.
And if you don't know about ityou're operating blind right,
constantly tripping overcommercial rules and obligations
you weren't even aware of, andthat, he says, leads to that bad
relationship with thejurisdiction.
(12:26):
Understanding is paramount.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Okay, this is where it gets really, really
interesting for me.
He's saying that the moment weget that SSN, we're sort of
programmed programmed to thinkof ourselves differently, as
this legal person separate fromour natural person.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Yeah, that's a core part of his argument.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
So what is this amalgamation?
He talks about this merging and, more importantly, what's the
alternative he's pushing?
How do we navigate this?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
He uses this specific legal term amalgamation.
It just means to merge orcombine things, and Kalam argues
that most people totallyunintentionally amalgamate.
They fuse their natural person,that's you, the living,
breathing individual, no numberattached with their legal person
.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
The legal fiction.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Right, the legal fiction, the entity that's
represented by things like yoursocial security number.
He compares it to a smallbusiness owner who messes up and
mixes their personal bankaccount with the company account
.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
But on a much bigger identity level.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Exactly, and he sees this blurring, this amalgamation
as a deliberate control tacticthat comes from what he calls a
public mindset.
It keeps people operatingwithin the system in a way that
benefits the structure perhapsmore than the individual.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
And he has that visual cue right.
The all caps name.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Yeah, he points that out specifically.
Look at your social securitycard.
He says the name is in all caps.
He argues that's not justrandom formatting.
He interprets it as a specificgrammatical signal.
It tells you that name refersto a legal fiction, an entity.
Similar to how corporate namesare often styled on official
documents, it's a flag sayingthis is the entity, not the
(14:02):
natural person.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
So it's a little code hidden in plain sight,
basically.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
And he ties this natural versus legal person
thing to tax history,specifically 1913.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
He does.
He brings up the 1913 incometax laws saying they're
absolutely critical tounderstanding this whole
separation.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Why those laws?
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Kalam claims those laws were specifically written
for legal persons, for thoselegal fictions, those entities.
They were not designed.
He argues for natural persons.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
So the income tax was meant for corporations and
trusts, not people.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
That's his assertion, and he goes further, claiming
these laws were intentionallycrafted by wealthy, informed
families, people who understoodthe system.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
And they designed it how.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
He says they designed it cleverly to work for both
the informed, who knew how tokeep their natural and legal
self separate, and theuninformed, who would
unknowingly merge or amalgamatethe two.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Wow, so the system benefits those who know the
distinction.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
That's the implication.
It allows the informed tostructure their affairs through
entities minimizing personal taxliability, while the uninformed
, by merging, end up taking thefull hit of personal taxation on
their natural person.
Okay, this leads to that starkchoice he presents.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
The employee path using the SSN versus the
entrepreneur path using an EIN.
Why does he see such a massivedifference between these two
numbers?
How do they impact liabilityand freedom?
Speaker 2 (15:32):
This is really the core of his wealth management
philosophy.
It boils down to this mantra,he repeats own nothing, control
everything.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Own nothing, control everything Sounds
counterintuitive.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
It does, especially because he contrasts it with
what he sees as the averageperson's desire.
Most people want to ownsomething right, like own their
house, own their car, but Kalamincludes owning things you
didn't even create, like yoursocial security number in that
category.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Owning your SSN.
How does he see that?
Speaker 2 (16:00):
He's quite provocative about it.
He calls the SSN one of thelowest numbers you can have in
commerce.
He basically labels it awelfare worker number.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Ouch why.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Because it's tied directly to the Social Security
Administration, which hedescribes as essentially a trust
set up to provide SocialSecurity insurance, what he
calls a handout when you hit 65.
It's not, in his view, a tooldesigned for building
entrepreneurial wealth.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
OK, so the SSN is the employee handout number.
What's the alternative for theentrepreneur?
The SSN is the employee handoutnumber.
What's the alternative for theentrepreneur?
Speaker 2 (16:29):
The alternative, the informed choice, according to
Kalam, is the employeridentification number, the EIN.
Right Businesses get thoseExactly and he argues that using
an EIN allows for a completelydifferent tax structure and,
crucially, it creates separationfrom personal liability.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
How did that separation work?
Speaker 2 (16:47):
He contrasts it directly with the SSN.
If you do business using yourSSN, he says you are personally
considered the owner of thatactivity.
Your natural person is directlylinked to all the businesses,
liabilities, taxes, debts,lawsuits.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
So you're personally exposed?
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Totally exposed.
But the EIN, when usedcorrectly, lets the natural
person control an entity like acorporation or trust, without
personally owning it.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
The control versus ownership distinction again.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Precisely that separation acts like a shield.
The business entity has its ownliabilities, separate from your
personal assets, kalam argues.
This is exactly how the wealthyoperate.
They control massive businessesand assets through these legal
fictions, these entities witheons, while their personal
natural selves remain insulated.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
So it's about shifting the risk, the liability
, away from you personally byusing these separate legal
structures.
But he also mentions anotherbig advantage fringe benefits.
How does that fit in?
How does it cut down personaltaxes?
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Yeah, the fringe benefits are a really practical
outcome of this structure.
This is where it gets tangiblefor the natural person who is
controlling, but not owning anentity like a corporation or a
trust.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Okay, how does it work?
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Kalam explains that expenses that most people
consider purely personal andtherefore have to pay for with
after-tax money can becomelegitimate business expenses for
the entity.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Like what kind of expenses?
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Things like your cell phone, maybe professional
clothing, operation of your foodcosts if related to business,
even potentially part of yourhousing if you have a home
office and definitelybusiness-related travel.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
So the business pays for those things.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
The entity you control pays for them.
Yes, they're classified aslegitimate business expenses.
The income comes into theentity.
The entity pays these costs.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
And that means less income needs to flow to you
personally to be taxed.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Exactly.
It effectively reduces yourreported personal taxable income
because the entity is coveringcosts that would otherwise come
out of your taxed personal funds.
He even points to IRSPublication 15b, which discusses
fringe benefits for publicentities, suggesting these
strategies are documented andlegal within the tax code.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
So it's not about hiding money, it's about
structuring expenses legallythrough the business entity.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
That's how he presents it Understanding the
commercial rules and using themlegally to optimize your
finances, instead of just payingfor everything personally after
taxes have already been takenout.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
This sounds like a powerful way to manage
day-to-day finances whilebuilding wealth, but Kalam also
tackles a huge issue for wealthbuilding passing it on probate
death taxes.
They can wipe out a lot, right.
How does his approach withtrusts and this trustee training
solve that?
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yeah, that's a critical piece for him because
ultimately, his goal isn't justabout getting by.
It's about achieving realcontrol over your life and time
and ensuring that wealth lastsbeyond you.
It's about generational wealth.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
And probate is a big obstacle.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
A huge one.
He highlights this problem Ifyou die without a proper will or
, more importantly, in his view,without a trust structure in
place, a massive chunk of yourwealth he throws out figures
like half or two thirds can justvanish into probate costs,
death taxes, inheritance taxes.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Which explains why wealth often doesn't survive
generations.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
He argues it's a major reason.
So his solution he stronglyadvocates for something he calls
private trustee training.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Trustee training.
What does that involve?
Speaker 2 (20:12):
It's training designed to teach you how to
manage your life and assets fromthat control everything own
nothing perspective he keepsemphasizing.
A core part is learning how toset up and manage trusts
properly.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
And how do trusts help with generational wealth?
Speaker 2 (20:26):
The key is setting up successor trustees within the
trust.
This creates a mechanism forthe family's legacy and wealth
to be passed down generationafter generation, often largely
avoiding those estate taxes.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
How does it avoid the taxes?
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Because the wealth is held by the trust, which is a
legal entity, not directly bythe individuals who die.
So when a trustee passes away,the assets don't necessarily
trigger the same estate taxevent as personally owned assets
would.
The trust continues with thenext trustee stepping in.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Like how the super-rich families operate.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
He draws that exact parallel.
He mentions families like theRothschilds and Rockefellers,
suggesting they've used similarlong-term strategies for
centuries, controlling vastassets through trusts and
foundations instead of owningthem personally as individuals.
It keeps the wealthconsolidated and protected
across generations.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
It sounds complex but also potentially very effective
.
Now he seems very careful todistinguish between legal and
illegal ways of handling money.
How does he draw the linebetween tax evasion, which is
illegal, and tax avoidance,especially using charity?
Speaker 2 (21:32):
He's very clear on that distinction.
He absolutely condemns illegaltax evasion, but he champions
legal tax avoidance, which hestates is standard practice
among the wealthy and informed.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
And how does charity fit into legal avoidance?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
He argues that strategic tax avoidance,
especially when channeledthrough charitable structures
like private foundations,actually benefits the public
good.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Benefits the public.
How?
Speaker 2 (21:56):
His reasoning is that it lightens the burden on the
government.
He provocatively calls thegovernment nothing but a big
charity, implying that privatecharitable giving, facilitated
by tax, can fulfill societalneeds more effectively or
efficiently than governmentprograms.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Does he give an example of this?
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Yes, he shows a really interesting one.
He talks about clients heworked with who were regular W-2
employees, had normal jobs, butthey went through his
recommended trustee training andafter that they set up their
own private family foundation.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
A foundation, even as employees.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Apparently so, and this structure allowed them to
legally donate a significantchunk he specifies 30% of their
income from their jobs directlyinto their own foundation.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
And the benefit.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
The benefit, according to Kalam, was huge.
They received a 30% taxdeduction on their personal
income tax return.
It directly reduced theirtaxable income base 30%, that's
substantial.
Very substantial and hestresses this isn't some shady
loophole.
He says it's verifiable on theIRS website.
It's a documented, legitimatestrategy used by informed people
(23:01):
to manage their taxes, reducetheir burden and build wealth
simultaneously all completelywithin the legal framework.
It's about knowing and usingthe simultaneously all
completely within the legalframework.
It's about knowing and usingthe rules, not breaking them.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
OK, let's talk about the high profile examples he
uses.
He brings up Donald Trump,specifically regarding his tax
records.
What's Kalam's take on whyTrump could legally refuse to
release them?
What does it illustrate aboutthis private wealth management
idea?
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Right.
The Trump example is one heuses to make his point very
concrete, and what's fascinatingis Kalam's core assertion this
isn't about hiding assetsillegally.
It's about structuring them sothe individual controls them
without direct personalownership.
That separation, he argues, isthe key model for the elite in
the US.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
So how does that apply to Trump's taxes?
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Kalam directly tackles the public debate around
Trump refusing to release histax returns.
His explanation isstraightforward within his
framework, trump can legally dothat he claims, because he
primarily doesn't use his socialsecurity number to conduct his
business affairs, uses somethingelse Exactly, kalam asserts.
(24:10):
Trump operates mainly throughtrusts or other forms of legal
fictions or legal names or legalpersons, which Kalam
essentially equates withentities operating under
employer identification numbersor EINs.
And because the businessesoperate under EINs the income
generated flows to those privateentities, the trusts and legal
fictions.
Kalam argues Trump isn'tpulling down public monies in a
way that would be directly tiedto a personal SSN.
(24:31):
Therefore, he claims Trumpdoesn't have personal income
from these ventures to report.
In the same way, an employee ora sole proprietor using only an
SSN would.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
So the income stays within the controlled entities,
not hitting him personally.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
That's the essence of Kalam's argument.
He presents it as a legitimatecommon strategy among the
wealthy and informed.
They manage vast assets andincome streams through these
private structures, effectivelyseparating their personal
financial identity from theircomplex business operations, all
perfectly legal within thecommercial jurisdiction's rules.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
It definitely paints a picture of a different
operating system for wealth atthat level.
And Kalam doesn't just stopwith Trump, right.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
He mentions Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg too,
following heavily on debt.
He even provocatively claimsthe US government itself is
doing this, suggesting it's inChapter 11 bankruptcy and
corporations can reorganize,restructure without necessarily
losing everything, unlikepersonal bankruptcy often works.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
OK, so corporations have more flexibility.
How does he connect that toGates?
Speaker 2 (25:48):
With Bill Gates.
Kalam brings up the history ofthe antitrust lawsuit Microsoft
faced.
He specifically links thatlegal battle to issues around
the structure and control oftrusts and he claims that
eventually Gates restructuredhis relationship with Microsoft.
He transitioned his personalownership stake into the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
So the foundation now holds the connection to
Microsoft.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Kalam claims the foundation now receives
financial disbursements likedividends or profits, perhaps
from the corporation.
He presents this as a clearstrategic move, shifting from
vulnerable personal ownership tocontrol via a charitable
foundation.
It manages the wealth, ensurescontinuity and offers
significant tax advantages.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Moving from owning to controlling via a foundation.
And Zuckerberg same pattern.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
He applies the exact same analytical lens.
Kalam states that MarkZuckerberg, who was initially
the direct owner of Facebook,followed a similar path by
creating the ZuckerbergFoundation.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
And that foundation.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
According to Kalam, that foundation now receives the
royalties dividends profitsgenerated by Facebook or Meta.
Now it mirrors the Gatesexample perfectly in his
narrative.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
So for Kalam, these aren't just isolated cases.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Not at all Connecting it to the bigger picture.
He uses Gates and Zuckerberg tohammer home the point.
Separating the natural personfrom the legal person and
shifting from personal ownershipto strategic control through
trusts and foundations is theestablished playbook for the
super wealthy.
It's how they manage liability,minimize taxes and ensure
wealth passes down throughgenerations.
(27:21):
Often, he implies largelytax-free.
It's a practical application ofown nothing, control everything
.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Okay, shifting gears a bit.
Don Kalam is very dismissive,even critical.
Shifting gears a bit.
Don Kalam is very dismissive,even critical of what he calls
sovereignty movements, peopletrying to declare themselves
outside the system.
What is?
Speaker 2 (27:49):
his stance on that reveal about his overall
philosophy for how to actuallynavigate society, especially
this clash between personalbeliefs and the commercial
reality he keeps describing.
Yeah, his critique ofsovereignty movements is really
telling.
What's fascinating is hisabsolute insistence that
personal stuff your feelings,your nationalism, your religion
he considers all that privateand he argues it holds basically
zero weight in the publicsphere, which for him is the
commercial jurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
So personal beliefs are irrelevant in public
interactions.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
Pretty much he sees them as distractions,
distractions from thefundamental business rules that
actually govern the land.
So personal beliefs areirrelevant in public
interactions.
Pretty much he sees them asdistractions, distractions from
the fundamental business rulesthat actually govern the land.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
He repeats that line often it's all about business,
it ain't personal.
So trying to claim sovereigntyor return your birth certificate
?
Speaker 2 (28:23):
He sees it as fundamentally misguided, futile.
Even he's quite blunt.
He points out the US is one ofthe most heavily armed
jurisdictions in the world.
You can't just declare yourselfout.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
But he also calls it a free jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
He does acknowledge that aspect the freedom to roam
from one state to the nextwithout internal borders.
Generally speaking, though, hedoes add a little note that the
Real ID Act might be changingthat dynamic somewhat.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
What about the idea some people have that you can't
go to jail for debts?
Speaker 2 (28:53):
He directly confronts that.
He says, yes, you can go tojail for certain debts, giving
child support obligations as akey example, and he reframes
jail itself.
He argues that serving time isactually a form of paying your
debt to society, specificallyfor breaking commercial laws,
not criminal laws in the way weusually think of them.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
So failing to pay child support is breaking a
commercial law.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
In his framework.
Yes, the system is designed, hebelieves, to hold the legal
person accountable for itscommercial contracts and
obligations.
If you default, there areconsequences within that
commercial system, which caninclude incarceration as a way
of settling the debt.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
OK.
So even something that feelsvery personal, like child
support, is viewed through acommercial lens.
So how does he advise people tointeract with authorities, then
Police Judges, if it's allabout business?
Speaker 2 (29:46):
His advice is consistent Approach every
interaction with any commercialentity, and he includes police
officers, judges, governmentagencies in that category.
Approach them in a purelycommercial manner.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Not emotionally, not based on personal grievances.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Definitely not.
He argues against gettingadverse or confrontational based
on personal feelings or claimsof individual sovereignty or
rights.
In the abstract, he believesthose approaches are totally
ineffective because they'reoperating on the wrong level.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
So what does a commercial manner look like in
that context?
Speaker 2 (30:16):
It means setting aside the personal, the
ideological, and focusing solelyon the commercial rules of
engagement.
What are the contracts involved?
What are the precisedefinitions being used?
What are the specificcommercial obligations at play
in that situation?
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Like negotiating a business deal almost.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
In a sense, yes, understanding the terms, the
jurisdiction, the liabilitiesaccording to the commercial
rules.
He genuinely seems to believethat if you fail to adopt this
business-oriented mindset,you'll just keep struggling.
You'll always be on the wrongside of the jurisdiction's laws
because you're trying to arguefeelings or personal rights in a
system that, in his view, onlyunderstands commercial terms.
(30:53):
It really is all business, notpersonal, for him.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
He really is challenging the traditional
paths, isn't he?
Especially what he calls theemployee mindset?
If his perspective holds anywater, what does that imply for
the future, for work, foreducation?
Speaker 2 (31:08):
It definitely raises huge questions because for Don
Kalam, the whole point isn'tjust earning a living.
It's about achieving ownershipand more control over your time
and over your life, and that, heargues, only comes from an
entrepreneurial,intelligence-driven perspective,
not from being an employee.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
And he's very critical of that employee
mindset.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
He usesers this point with statistics.
He attributes to the Bureau ofLabor and Statistics and the
Social Security Administration.
He paints a pretty bleakpicture for age 65.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
What are the numbers he cites?
Speaker 2 (31:39):
He claims that out of every 100 people reaching 65, a
shocking 55 percent are deadbroke.
Another 30 percent are actuallydead.
Only 5 percent are stillworking, just 4 percent are
considered financially secureand a tiny 1% are truly wealthy.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
Wow, whether those numbers are exact or not, the
picture is grim.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
Exactly.
He uses it to argue vehementlyagainst relying solely on a job.
He frames the traditionalcareer path as almost a setup
for failure or struggle in laterlife.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
And he connects us directly to the education system
.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Oh, absolutely.
He asserts that schools,fundamentally, were put in place
by John D Rockefeller, with theGeneral Education Board.
Rockefeller, yes.
And because schools are mostlytaught by employees, he argues,
their primary function is toprogram individuals to be
employees, not entrepreneurs.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
That's a strong claim .
He even mentions HBCUs.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
He does very provocatively.
That's a strong claim.
He even mentions HBCUs.
He does very provocatively.
He claims that even well-known,historically black colleges and
universities like Morehouse andSpelman were actually started
by Rockefeller, not byAfrican-Americans.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Wow, challenging founding, narratives there.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
His point, however controversial.
The example is that the entireeducational system, from its
roots, is designed to create acompliant workforce, not a
nation of independent businessowners and innovators.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
So he sees the education system as actively
discouraging entrepreneurship.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
How does he see the job market itself changing?
He talks about skills versusintelligence.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Yes, he draws a really sharp line there.
He argues society is rapidlyshifting.
We're moving beyond meetingjust basic skills.
He uses the old example ofdigging ditches manually and
demanding intelligence, which hedefines as the ability to
create the systems or machinesthat perform those skills, so
designing the machine that digsthe ditch, not just operating
the shovel.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
And he have modern examples.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
Yeah, he points to things happening right now Tesla
pushing for fully automatedcars.
He predicts that will massivelyreduce the need for human
mechanics.
Or the Washington Postdownsizing, replacing human
button pushers with automationin various departments.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
And he doesn't see this as necessarily bad.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
He frames it as just the natural evolution of the
commercial jurisdiction.
It's an opportunity, hesuggests, for people to become
more productive by using theirintelligence in smarter, more
leveraged ways.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
So the future demands a business mindset.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
Absolutely Rooted in intelligent problem solving
innovation strategy, not justhaving a skill that can be
automated.
This all feeds back into hiscore message you have to
proactively embraceentrepreneurship and strategic
thinking to thrive.
You have to proactively embraceentrepreneurship and strategic
thinking to thrive.
The old employee model, heargues, is becoming obsolete in
this evolving commercial world.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Okay, let's talk about law.
Don Cullen puts a lot ofemphasis on understanding the
law, but not necessarilybecoming a lawyer.
He talks about law libraries,contract law.
What's his strategy here?
Speaker 2 (34:27):
Well, what's really interesting is his core belief
in critical thinking and, maybemore importantly, applied
knowledge.
It's not just knowing stuff,it's using it effectively in
this commercial jurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
So you don't have to do it all yourself.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
No, in fact he advises the opposite in some
ways.
He says hire people smarterthan you Get good accountants,
good lawyers, don't try to bethe expert in everything.
But, he stresses, you stillneed to know enough to pick the
right experts and, crucially, todirect them effectively.
You need to understand thelandscape they're operating in.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
And law libraries fit into this.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
Yes, he places huge importance on individuals
understanding the actual laws ofthe jurisdiction.
He really encourages peoplequite passionately to go visit
their local law library.
He points out they're publiclyavailable, usually in county
courthouses.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Why To read statutes?
Speaker 2 (35:21):
Specifically, he emphasizes learning how to draft
contracts.
He sees this as a fundamentalskill for empowerment within the
system knowing how to structureagreements properly.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
And he distinguishes his approach from others.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
He does.
He says he focuses on citingthe law directly, finding the
actual statute or code.
He contrasts this with otherswho, he says, just interpret the
law, which he sees as anamateur move, something that
leads to mistakes and legaltrouble.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Stick to the text.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
Right and he brings up a key principle, especially
in what he calls the privatecontract world.
He says contract makes the law.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
Contract makes the law.
What does that mean practically?
Speaker 2 (35:59):
It means, according to him, that within a private
contract, the parties canessentially set their own rules.
He claims there are nostatutory limitations in that
private sphere, and you can evenspecify which jurisdictions
laws will govern that specificcontract.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
Wow, that sounds like a lot of power.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
He presents it as granting immense power and
flexibility, allowingindividuals to operate somewhat
outside the constraints ofconventional public law, setting
their own terms of engagementwithin the larger commercial
system.
He sees mastering contracts asa vital tool for private
individuals.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Don Kalam really draws this sharp line between
public information, which mostpeople have access to, and
private information, which hesays the wealthy use.
What are the practicalimplications of understanding
this difference?
How does it lead to freedom?
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Yeah, that public versus private distinction is
fundamental for him andconnecting it to the bigger
picture.
He really believes thatgrasping and using this private
knowledge is what allowsindividuals to operate with the
quote highest level of integrityand accountability.
It frees them, he argues, fromthe limitations and liabilities
inherent in just operatingwithin the public system.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
So what constitutes private versus public
information?
Speaker 2 (37:12):
He contends that private information, the real,
actionable knowledge about howthe commercial and legal system
actually works, especiallyregarding entities, trusts,
contracts, is effectivelyhoarded.
It's kept close andsystematically used by what he
calls informed families, theelite, the wealthy.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
And public information.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Public information, like what you get in school or
maybe mainstream media, he seesas just consumed.
People take it in but oftendon't use it effectively or it
doesn't give them the real toolsfor control.
He even labels public educationspecifically as controlled
knowledge, Controlled meaning,designed to keep people
(37:51):
operating within that publicframework, the employee mindset,
rather than empowering themwith the private knowledge
needed for genuine financial andcommercial freedom, the kind
the informed families possess.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
And he connects this private knowledge back to the
Constitution.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
He does frequently.
He often brings up Article 1,section 10 of the US
Constitution.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
What does that section say in his view?
Speaker 2 (38:11):
His interpretation is that it provides a powerful
guarantee of the right tocontract.
Crucially, it ensures that nostate can impair the obligation
of a contract.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
OK, the right to contract is protected.
How does that help theindividual?
Speaker 2 (38:24):
He argues, this constitutional protection
empowers individuals to createprivate documents, essentially
private contracts betweenthemselves and their own
entities.
Perhaps, in these documents,they can explicitly state their
status as a natural being, whilesimultaneously acknowledging
their use of commercialinstruments, like an EIN, for
(38:44):
their business dealings.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
So it legally separates the natural person
from the commercial activity.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
That's the idea he promotes.
It creates a clear legaldistinction, offering that layer
of protection and control.
This contrasts sharply withwhat he calls adhesion contracts
.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
Adhesion contracts.
What are those?
Speaker 2 (39:02):
He describes these as the typical contracts most
people encounter daily, where hesays the government trust is in
place.
Think about signing up for yourphone service or clicking I
agree to terms and conditionsonline.
Speaker 1 (39:13):
But you don't negotiate those.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Exactly.
You just adhere to them.
You have no power to negotiatethe terms Kalam implies.
This signifies a fundamentallack of control over your own
commercial life when you're onlyoperating within that public
adhesion contract framework.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
So understanding the private information using
private contracts.
That's the key.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
For Kalam yes, understanding the distinction,
actively seeking out andapplying that private knowledge
about contracts, entities andthe Constitution that's how you
navigate the commercialjurisdiction with autonomy,
integrity and ultimately achievegreater financial success and
freedom from the constraints ofthe public system.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Wow, this deep dive into Don Kalam's perspective.
It has definitely been ajourney, I mean from
understanding the US as thisinherently commercial place
where we're supposedly all borninto business.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Yeah, that's a big shift right there.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
Right To seeing things like birth certificates
and social security numbers notjust as ID, but as foundational
commercial instruments.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
Secret contracts yeah .
Speaker 1 (40:14):
And then exploring that really profound difference
he sees between just earningstuff and strategically
controlling it using tools likeEINs, trusts.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
The own nothing control everything.
Mantra.
Speaker 1 (40:24):
Exactly To manage wealth, practice legal tax
avoidance and even set up thesegenerational legacies, like he
suggests.
Figures like Trump, gates andZuckerberg have done.
Speaker 2 (40:34):
Using those high-profile examples to
illustrate the blueprint.
Speaker 1 (40:38):
It's a direct challenge, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (40:39):
To move past that employee mindset he critiques so
heavily to embraceentrepreneurship and really try
to master these private aspectsof law and finance he talks
about.
It really is a call to rethinkhow we operate within the system
.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
It seems his vision ultimately suggests that real
freedom, real financial security.
It doesn't come from ignoringthe rules or wishing them away.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
No, quite the opposite.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
It comes from a deep understanding and a really
strategic application of thecommercial rules that are
already in play, whether werealize it or not.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
Which definitely leaves you with something to
think about.
It raises this importantquestion If the wealthy, as he
claims, have always operated onthis principle of owning nothing
and controlling everything,what would happen?
What would the personal, eventhe societal implications be if
that kind of knowledge, that wayof operating became truly
widespread?
Speaker 1 (41:33):
Yeah, would it shift power dynamics?
Would it redefineaccountability completely?
Speaker 2 (41:37):
Could it?
It's a provocative thought toend on.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
It really is.
So what stands out to youlistening today from this deep
dive?
We really hope thisconversation has maybe given you
a fresh perspective, a new lensto look at your own financial
world.
Speaker 2 (41:50):
Maybe sparked an aha moment, perhaps new lens to look
at your own financial world.
Speaker 1 (41:52):
Maybe sparked an aha moment, perhaps, hopefully, an
aha moment about theopportunities that might be
available when you start tounderstand, or at least consider
, these deeper rules of the gameas Don Kalan presents them.
Keep digging, keep learningExactly, keep diving deeper into
the topics that spark yourinterest and keep gathering that
knowledge quickly butthoroughly.
Have you ever, you know, looked at your birth
certificate or maybe your socialsecurity card and just wondered
is there something deeper goingon here?
What if these documents, thesethings we just take for granted,
actually held the key to, well,a totally different way of
engaging with the world, a waythat could fundamentally
redefine how you relate to money, taxes, even your own identity?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
It's a pretty radical thought, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (00:24):
It really is, and today we're taking a deep dive
into exactly that kind ofthinking.
We're looking at an intriguingand, honestly, pretty
provocative perspective from DonKalam over at Dream Keepers
Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Right Don Kalam.
He holds a doctorate inbusiness and law, which is an
important context here.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Definitely, and he presents this really compelling,
sometimes controversial, viewof the United States.
He argues it's fundamentally acommercial jurisdiction.
So our mission today is tounpack those arguments.
We want to explore thesurprising nuggets of knowledge
he pulls out from common legalstuff, financial concepts, and
help you understand what thisunique lens might mean for how
(01:02):
you approach your own financiallife.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yeah, We'll be touching on everything, from the
paper your birth certificate isprinted on, apparently to the
sophisticated strategies thesuper wealthy use.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
All through this very specific entrepreneur-focused
framework that Kalam argues iswell the real blueprint for
success.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
So the material we're digging into.
It comes from two main talks byDon Kalam.
One's called Commerce, birthCertificates, trade Names and
Social Security Numbers, and theother is Natural versus Legal
Person Wealth ManagementStrategies.
And it's really crucial, as youlisten, to remember these are
Don Kalam's interpretations,they're his viewpoints, shaped
(01:42):
by his background in businessand law.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Absolutely.
We're here as guides, right?
We're navigating his specificideas impartially, not endorsing
them, just laying them out soyou can consider them critically
and, hopefully, become betterinformed.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Exactly, it's about understanding his perspective.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Okay, so let's unpack this.
Don Kalam kicks things off witha foundational claim, and this
really sets the stage for welleverything else he talks about.
He argues that the UnitedStates just isn't what most
people think it is, andunderstanding its true nature
fundamentally changes how weshould see our place in it.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Right, it's a big opening statement.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
So what exactly is this foundational claim?
How does he redefine ourunderstanding of, you know, the
very fabric of our society?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Well, he's very emphatic about this.
Don Kalam asserts that the USis, at its core, a capitalist
society.
Specifically, he stresses, it'sa republic, like it says in the
Constitution.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Not a democracy or socialist.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Exactly.
He says it's not a democracy orsocialist society and he argues
that many people misunderstandthis basic distinction and that
misunderstanding it can reallyhit your financial well-being.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
OK, so republic versus democracy.
Why is that so critical in hisview?
Is it just semantics?
Speaker 2 (02:52):
For Kalam it's definitely not just semantics,
it's a critical legal,structural reality.
He believes this wholeRepublican structure inherently
fosters a what he calls alaissez-faire environment.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Laissez-faire Okay, free market.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Yeah, Basically a free market system, One where
enterprise is encouraged, wherethe opportunities for
individuals to open businessesare well supposed to be
plentiful.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
So starting a business is encouraged.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Highly encouraged.
He talks about setting upstatutory public entities like a
normal corporation or even moreprivate entities, and he makes
the point that the barriers toentry are often, you know,
surprisingly minimal.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Like setting up an LLC.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Right.
He gives the example of LLCcosts, even in a place like
Illinois, where he says it mightbe what?
$600.
He frames that as a manageableinvestment for what he sees as
the default path to success here.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
The default path.
Wow, so not being anentrepreneur is a disadvantage.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
A significant disadvantage, in his view.
It's like trying to swimupstream, he suggests.
He believes that if you're notprepared to open a business in
this society, you're missing thepoint almost.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
And he connects this to how fast things change, too
right.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Yeah, he uses that to illustrate the dynamic nature
of this commercial environment.
He points out think about thelast 20 years no Google Maps, no
Facebook, no YouTube back then,ah good point.
He argues.
This constant churn is clearevidence of a landscape just
ripe with entrepreneurialopportunities, but only for
those who actually understandand adapt to its commercial
(04:23):
nature.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
That's a really powerful reframing.
So if we're operating in thiscapitalist republic, this
commercial jurisdiction, whatdoes Kalam say that means for
our day-to-day life, like evenour ID documents?
Does it impact us right frombirth?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Oh, absolutely.
Kalam takes that foundationalidea and pushes it further.
He asserts that simply by beingborn in the United States, you
are quote born into a commercialjurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Born into it.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Born right into it and he's very clear.
This isn't some secret thegovernment's hiding.
He says it's just the realityand it's your responsibility,
the individual's responsibility,to understand it and,
critically, to teach it to yourfamily.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
OK, so how do we understand it?
He has an analogy right.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Yeah, he calls it the rule of the environment.
It's pretty simple, likegravity you jump up, you come
back down, it's inevitable.
He says.
Understanding the commercialrules here in the US is just
like that.
It's essential for wellsurvival and success within this
environment.
You have to know the rules ofthe game and the purpose of the
(05:26):
game.
In his, let's say, starkperspective, the fundamental
purpose of this whole system isto make money period Wow Blunt.
Very blunt.
He doesn't mince words.
He basically says if you don'tgrasp this commercial reality
and engage with it, you're goingto end up broke.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
So much for the last will be first.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
He addresses that directly.
He says that idea is spiritual,maybe applicable only in heaven
, but not here, not on thisplanet.
Here you have to understand andplay by the established
commercial rules if you wantmaterial success.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
So recognizing this commercial nature is key, more
important than otheraffiliations.
He believes, so he believes sohe argues, it overrides personal
feelings, nationalistic pride,even religious beliefs when it
comes to achieving prosperity inthe material world.
(06:16):
It's all about the commercialjurisdiction.
Ok, so if we're born into thiscommercial system and success
means understanding its rules,then our very first documents
must have some kind ofcommercial weight right.
What about the birthcertificate?
It seems pretty straightforward.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Ah.
But that's where Kalam reallyshifts the perspective.
He argues it's not just asimple record of birth.
He sees it as a foundationalcommercial document, like the
very first contract in yourcommercial life.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
The first contract how?
Speaker 2 (06:41):
He gets specific.
He points out that birthcertificates are printed on and
he calls it this specificallyAmerican banknote paper.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Like money paper.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Exactly, and he insists this is not an accident,
it's a deliberate symbol.
It signifies that we live in aquote certificate-based society,
a society built entirely oncontracts.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Huh Are other documents like this too.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
He mentions marriage certificates as another example
falling into this category ofcommercial instruments, but the
birth certificate is the firstone.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
And what does it do commercially speaking?
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Kalam asserts that issuing a birth certificate
actually creates what he calls aUnited States person.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
A United States person, not just me.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Not the natural flesh and blood.
You know he explicitly definesthis US person as a commercial
entity.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
An entity, yeah, like a company.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Sort of His logic is look, the United States itself
is fundamentally a commercialentity, right?
Speaker 1 (07:36):
In his view, yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
So any person created by its foundational documents
within its jurisdiction mustalso be, by extension, a
commercial entity.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Wow, Okay.
So that simple piece of paperbecomes this huge commercial
instrument from day one.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Exactly.
It lays the groundwork for yourentire commercial engagement
with the jurisdiction, bindingyou into its system of contracts
and obligations right from thestart.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
That's a lot to take in about a birth certificate.
So if that's our firstcommercial contract, what about
the other identity things we use, like trade names and the big
one, social security numbers?
What's their commercial roleand what about our liability?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Right.
This leads directly intopersonal accountability within
this commercial framework he'sdescribing.
Kalam really stresses thatunderstanding these commercial
laws is crucial.
If you don't, he says, you'reinevitably going to have a bad
relationship with thejurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Makes sense if you're breaking rules you don't know
exist.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Precisely so.
Building on the birthcertificate idea, he explains
that trade names are alsofundamentally based off of
contracts.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
What counts as a trade name, my business name.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
That, yes, but he defines it more broadly Any name
you use in commerce could beyour given name when you use it
for business, a specificbusiness name, even like a pen
name, if you're writingcommercially.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
So any name used for business is a commercial name.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
In his view, yes, because the US is a commercial
jurisdiction, any name usedwithin it for business purposes
automatically becomes acommercial name purposes
automatically becomes acommercial name.
He even suggests you couldconsciously choose to stop using
your natural name commerciallyand operate solely under a
commercial name.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Interesting.
Ok, now Social Security numbers.
Most people think those aremandatory right, you need one
for everything.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
That's the common assumption, but Kalam challenges
it.
He offers a pretty strikingperspective here.
He tells stories, personalanecdotes, about well-off
friends he knew even back inhigh school, who apparently
didn't have SSNs.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Really, how do they manage?
Speaker 2 (09:32):
He doesn't detail that, but uses it to suggest
that having an SSN isn't thisabsolute, unavoidable
requirement for living andsucceeding here.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
So he sees it like the birth certificate, a
commercial tool.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Exactly.
He views SSNs as commercialinstruments, just like birth
certificates.
And here's the key part heasserts that individuals
fundamentally have a choice toeither use or not use them,
especially when it comes toconducting business.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
A choice.
That's a huge claim.
Most people feel like they haveto use their SSN for jobs banks
.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
He acknowledges that's the common practice but
frames it as potentiallyuninformed participation in the
system.
He suggests the informed personmight operate differently.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
OK, but he also talks about the history of the SSN
right.
Why were they introduced ifthey weren't always around?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Yes, he provides a fascinating, though maybe
controversial, historical take.
He claims that before, say,1913, or maybe 1933, people
didn't have SSNs.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
The taxes existed before then.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Right.
So his argument is what changed?
He contends these instruments,SSNs included, were specifically
put in place to hold the legalperson, that commercial entity
we talked about, accountable Tomake sure debts got paid in a
system increasingly focused oncommerce.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
So it wasn't about taxing individuals directly.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
He links it back further very provocatively to
the US separation from England.
He claims that split wasprimarily driven by a desire to
avoid personal taxes imposed bythe crown.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Huh, I haven't heard that specific angle before.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
He argues the goal was to set up a society where
entities, trusts, corporations,etc.
Were the primary players,encouraging charity and managing
public good through privatemeans rather than direct
personal taxation.
He points to things likecolleges, hospitals, saying many
were started through privateendowments.
Part of this entity drivencharity based system.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
OK, so the SSN fits into that as a tool for entity
accountability.
Ok, so the SSN fits into thatas a tool for entity
accountability.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
That's his framing.
It's for commercialaccountability, managing debt
within this specific framework,and this leads him to ask the
critical questions aboutliability.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Like.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Like who's liable when you use that SSN?
Who is on the hook?
Is the government somehowbacking your debt?
Does it disappear if youdeclare bankruptcy using your
SSN?
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Hmm, tricky questions , and he mentioned something
about double bookkeeping.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Yes, backing your debt?
Does it disappear if youdeclare bankruptcy using your
SSN?
Tricky questions.
And he mentioned somethingabout double bookkeeping.
Yes, he introduces this idea ofdouble bookkeeping with the
county.
He doesn't fully flesh out themechanics and the source
material we reviewed, but theimplication is there's some kind
of parallel financial recordkeeping going on.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
A separate ledger for your legal person.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Something like that A less visible account where your
legal person interactsfinancially with the
jurisdiction building up thiscommercial record, these
obligations.
And if you don't know about ityou're operating blind right,
constantly tripping overcommercial rules and obligations
you weren't even aware of, andthat, he says, leads to that bad
relationship with thejurisdiction.
(12:26):
Understanding is paramount.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Okay, this is where it gets really, really
interesting for me.
He's saying that the moment weget that SSN, we're sort of
programmed programmed to thinkof ourselves differently, as
this legal person separate fromour natural person.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Yeah, that's a core part of his argument.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
So what is this amalgamation?
He talks about this merging and, more importantly, what's the
alternative he's pushing?
How do we navigate this?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
He uses this specific legal term amalgamation.
It just means to merge orcombine things, and Kalam argues
that most people totallyunintentionally amalgamate.
They fuse their natural person,that's you, the living,
breathing individual, no numberattached with their legal person
.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
The legal fiction.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Right, the legal fiction, the entity that's
represented by things like yoursocial security number.
He compares it to a smallbusiness owner who messes up and
mixes their personal bankaccount with the company account
.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
But on a much bigger identity level.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Exactly, and he sees this blurring, this amalgamation
as a deliberate control tacticthat comes from what he calls a
public mindset.
It keeps people operatingwithin the system in a way that
benefits the structure perhapsmore than the individual.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
And he has that visual cue right.
The all caps name.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Yeah, he points that out specifically.
Look at your social securitycard.
He says the name is in all caps.
He argues that's not justrandom formatting.
He interprets it as a specificgrammatical signal.
It tells you that name refersto a legal fiction, an entity.
Similar to how corporate namesare often styled on official
documents, it's a flag sayingthis is the entity, not the
(14:02):
natural person.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
So it's a little code hidden in plain sight,
basically.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
And he ties this natural versus legal person
thing to tax history,specifically 1913.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
He does.
He brings up the 1913 incometax laws saying they're
absolutely critical tounderstanding this whole
separation.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Why those laws?
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Kalam claims those laws were specifically written
for legal persons, for thoselegal fictions, those entities.
They were not designed.
He argues for natural persons.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
So the income tax was meant for corporations and
trusts, not people.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
That's his assertion, and he goes further, claiming
these laws were intentionallycrafted by wealthy, informed
families, people who understoodthe system.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
And they designed it how.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
He says they designed it cleverly to work for both
the informed, who knew how tokeep their natural and legal
self separate, and theuninformed, who would
unknowingly merge or amalgamatethe two.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Wow, so the system benefits those who know the
distinction.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
That's the implication.
It allows the informed tostructure their affairs through
entities minimizing personal taxliability, while the uninformed
, by merging, end up taking thefull hit of personal taxation on
their natural person.
Okay, this leads to that starkchoice he presents.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
The employee path using the SSN versus the
entrepreneur path using an EIN.
Why does he see such a massivedifference between these two
numbers?
How do they impact liabilityand freedom?
Speaker 2 (15:32):
This is really the core of his wealth management
philosophy.
It boils down to this mantra,he repeats own nothing, control
everything.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Own nothing, control everything Sounds
counterintuitive.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
It does, especially because he contrasts it with
what he sees as the averageperson's desire.
Most people want to ownsomething right, like own their
house, own their car, but Kalamincludes owning things you
didn't even create, like yoursocial security number in that
category.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Owning your SSN.
How does he see that?
Speaker 2 (16:00):
He's quite provocative about it.
He calls the SSN one of thelowest numbers you can have in
commerce.
He basically labels it awelfare worker number.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Ouch why.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Because it's tied directly to the Social Security
Administration, which hedescribes as essentially a trust
set up to provide SocialSecurity insurance, what he
calls a handout when you hit 65.
It's not, in his view, a tooldesigned for building
entrepreneurial wealth.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
OK, so the SSN is the employee handout number.
What's the alternative for theentrepreneur?
The SSN is the employee handoutnumber.
What's the alternative for theentrepreneur?
Speaker 2 (16:29):
The alternative, the informed choice, according to
Kalam, is the employeridentification number, the EIN.
Right Businesses get thoseExactly and he argues that using
an EIN allows for a completelydifferent tax structure and,
crucially, it creates separationfrom personal liability.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
How did that separation work?
Speaker 2 (16:47):
He contrasts it directly with the SSN.
If you do business using yourSSN, he says you are personally
considered the owner of thatactivity.
Your natural person is directlylinked to all the businesses,
liabilities, taxes, debts,lawsuits.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
So you're personally exposed?
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Totally exposed.
But the EIN, when usedcorrectly, lets the natural
person control an entity like acorporation or trust, without
personally owning it.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
The control versus ownership distinction again.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Precisely that separation acts like a shield.
The business entity has its ownliabilities, separate from your
personal assets, kalam argues.
This is exactly how the wealthyoperate.
They control massive businessesand assets through these legal
fictions, these entities witheons, while their personal
natural selves remain insulated.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
So it's about shifting the risk, the liability
, away from you personally byusing these separate legal
structures.
But he also mentions anotherbig advantage fringe benefits.
How does that fit in?
How does it cut down personaltaxes?
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Yeah, the fringe benefits are a really practical
outcome of this structure.
This is where it gets tangiblefor the natural person who is
controlling, but not owning anentity like a corporation or a
trust.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Okay, how does it work?
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Kalam explains that expenses that most people
consider purely personal andtherefore have to pay for with
after-tax money can becomelegitimate business expenses for
the entity.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Like what kind of expenses?
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Things like your cell phone, maybe professional
clothing, operation of your foodcosts if related to business,
even potentially part of yourhousing if you have a home
office and definitelybusiness-related travel.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
So the business pays for those things.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
The entity you control pays for them.
Yes, they're classified aslegitimate business expenses.
The income comes into theentity.
The entity pays these costs.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
And that means less income needs to flow to you
personally to be taxed.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Exactly.
It effectively reduces yourreported personal taxable income
because the entity is coveringcosts that would otherwise come
out of your taxed personal funds.
He even points to IRSPublication 15b, which discusses
fringe benefits for publicentities, suggesting these
strategies are documented andlegal within the tax code.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
So it's not about hiding money, it's about
structuring expenses legallythrough the business entity.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
That's how he presents it Understanding the
commercial rules and using themlegally to optimize your
finances, instead of just payingfor everything personally after
taxes have already been takenout.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
This sounds like a powerful way to manage
day-to-day finances whilebuilding wealth, but Kalam also
tackles a huge issue for wealthbuilding passing it on probate
death taxes.
They can wipe out a lot, right.
How does his approach withtrusts and this trustee training
solve that?
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yeah, that's a critical piece for him because
ultimately, his goal isn't justabout getting by.
It's about achieving realcontrol over your life and time
and ensuring that wealth lastsbeyond you.
It's about generational wealth.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
And probate is a big obstacle.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
A huge one.
He highlights this problem Ifyou die without a proper will or
, more importantly, in his view,without a trust structure in
place, a massive chunk of yourwealth he throws out figures
like half or two thirds can justvanish into probate costs,
death taxes, inheritance taxes.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Which explains why wealth often doesn't survive
generations.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
He argues it's a major reason.
So his solution he stronglyadvocates for something he calls
private trustee training.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Trustee training.
What does that involve?
Speaker 2 (20:12):
It's training designed to teach you how to
manage your life and assets fromthat control everything own
nothing perspective he keepsemphasizing.
A core part is learning how toset up and manage trusts
properly.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
And how do trusts help with generational wealth?
Speaker 2 (20:26):
The key is setting up successor trustees within the
trust.
This creates a mechanism forthe family's legacy and wealth
to be passed down generationafter generation, often largely
avoiding those estate taxes.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
How does it avoid the taxes?
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Because the wealth is held by the trust, which is a
legal entity, not directly bythe individuals who die.
So when a trustee passes away,the assets don't necessarily
trigger the same estate taxevent as personally owned assets
would.
The trust continues with thenext trustee stepping in.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Like how the super-rich families operate.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
He draws that exact parallel.
He mentions families like theRothschilds and Rockefellers,
suggesting they've used similarlong-term strategies for
centuries, controlling vastassets through trusts and
foundations instead of owningthem personally as individuals.
It keeps the wealthconsolidated and protected
across generations.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
It sounds complex but also potentially very effective
.
Now he seems very careful todistinguish between legal and
illegal ways of handling money.
How does he draw the linebetween tax evasion, which is
illegal, and tax avoidance,especially using charity?
Speaker 2 (21:32):
He's very clear on that distinction.
He absolutely condemns illegaltax evasion, but he champions
legal tax avoidance, which hestates is standard practice
among the wealthy and informed.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
And how does charity fit into legal avoidance?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
He argues that strategic tax avoidance,
especially when channeledthrough charitable structures
like private foundations,actually benefits the public
good.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Benefits the public.
How?
Speaker 2 (21:56):
His reasoning is that it lightens the burden on the
government.
He provocatively calls thegovernment nothing but a big
charity, implying that privatecharitable giving, facilitated
by tax, can fulfill societalneeds more effectively or
efficiently than governmentprograms.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Does he give an example of this?
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Yes, he shows a really interesting one.
He talks about clients heworked with who were regular W-2
employees, had normal jobs, butthey went through his
recommended trustee training andafter that they set up their
own private family foundation.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
A foundation, even as employees.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Apparently so, and this structure allowed them to
legally donate a significantchunk he specifies 30% of their
income from their jobs directlyinto their own foundation.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
And the benefit.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
The benefit, according to Kalam, was huge.
They received a 30% taxdeduction on their personal
income tax return.
It directly reduced theirtaxable income base 30%, that's
substantial.
Very substantial and hestresses this isn't some shady
loophole.
He says it's verifiable on theIRS website.
It's a documented, legitimatestrategy used by informed people
(23:01):
to manage their taxes, reducetheir burden and build wealth
simultaneously all completelywithin the legal framework.
It's about knowing and usingthe simultaneously all
completely within the legalframework.
It's about knowing and usingthe rules, not breaking them.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
OK, let's talk about the high profile examples he
uses.
He brings up Donald Trump,specifically regarding his tax
records.
What's Kalam's take on whyTrump could legally refuse to
release them?
What does it illustrate aboutthis private wealth management
idea?
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Right.
The Trump example is one heuses to make his point very
concrete, and what's fascinatingis Kalam's core assertion this
isn't about hiding assetsillegally.
It's about structuring them sothe individual controls them
without direct personalownership.
That separation, he argues, isthe key model for the elite in
the US.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
So how does that apply to Trump's taxes?
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Kalam directly tackles the public debate around
Trump refusing to release histax returns.
His explanation isstraightforward within his
framework, trump can legally dothat he claims, because he
primarily doesn't use his socialsecurity number to conduct his
business affairs, uses somethingelse Exactly, kalam asserts.
(24:10):
Trump operates mainly throughtrusts or other forms of legal
fictions or legal names or legalpersons, which Kalam
essentially equates withentities operating under
employer identification numbersor EINs.
And because the businessesoperate under EINs the income
generated flows to those privateentities, the trusts and legal
fictions.
Kalam argues Trump isn'tpulling down public monies in a
way that would be directly tiedto a personal SSN.
(24:31):
Therefore, he claims Trumpdoesn't have personal income
from these ventures to report.
In the same way, an employee ora sole proprietor using only an
SSN would.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
So the income stays within the controlled entities,
not hitting him personally.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
That's the essence of Kalam's argument.
He presents it as a legitimatecommon strategy among the
wealthy and informed.
They manage vast assets andincome streams through these
private structures, effectivelyseparating their personal
financial identity from theircomplex business operations, all
perfectly legal within thecommercial jurisdiction's rules.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
It definitely paints a picture of a different
operating system for wealth atthat level.
And Kalam doesn't just stopwith Trump, right.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
He mentions Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg too,
following heavily on debt.
He even provocatively claimsthe US government itself is
doing this, suggesting it's inChapter 11 bankruptcy and
corporations can reorganize,restructure without necessarily
losing everything, unlikepersonal bankruptcy often works.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
OK, so corporations have more flexibility.
How does he connect that toGates?
Speaker 2 (25:48):
With Bill Gates.
Kalam brings up the history ofthe antitrust lawsuit Microsoft
faced.
He specifically links thatlegal battle to issues around
the structure and control oftrusts and he claims that
eventually Gates restructuredhis relationship with Microsoft.
He transitioned his personalownership stake into the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
So the foundation now holds the connection to
Microsoft.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Kalam claims the foundation now receives
financial disbursements likedividends or profits, perhaps
from the corporation.
He presents this as a clearstrategic move, shifting from
vulnerable personal ownership tocontrol via a charitable
foundation.
It manages the wealth, ensurescontinuity and offers
significant tax advantages.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Moving from owning to controlling via a foundation.
And Zuckerberg same pattern.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
He applies the exact same analytical lens.
Kalam states that MarkZuckerberg, who was initially
the direct owner of Facebook,followed a similar path by
creating the ZuckerbergFoundation.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
And that foundation.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
According to Kalam, that foundation now receives the
royalties dividends profitsgenerated by Facebook or Meta.
Now it mirrors the Gatesexample perfectly in his
narrative.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
So for Kalam, these aren't just isolated cases.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Not at all Connecting it to the bigger picture.
He uses Gates and Zuckerberg tohammer home the point.
Separating the natural personfrom the legal person and
shifting from personal ownershipto strategic control through
trusts and foundations is theestablished playbook for the
super wealthy.
It's how they manage liability,minimize taxes and ensure
wealth passes down throughgenerations.
(27:21):
Often, he implies largelytax-free.
It's a practical application ofown nothing, control everything
.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Okay, shifting gears a bit.
Don Kalam is very dismissive,even critical.
Shifting gears a bit.
Don Kalam is very dismissive,even critical of what he calls
sovereignty movements, peopletrying to declare themselves
outside the system.
What is?
Speaker 2 (27:49):
his stance on that reveal about his overall
philosophy for how to actuallynavigate society, especially
this clash between personalbeliefs and the commercial
reality he keeps describing.
Yeah, his critique ofsovereignty movements is really
telling.
What's fascinating is hisabsolute insistence that
personal stuff your feelings,your nationalism, your religion
he considers all that privateand he argues it holds basically
zero weight in the publicsphere, which for him is the
commercial jurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
So personal beliefs are irrelevant in public
interactions.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
Pretty much he sees them as distractions,
distractions from thefundamental business rules that
actually govern the land.
So personal beliefs areirrelevant in public
interactions.
Pretty much he sees them asdistractions, distractions from
the fundamental business rulesthat actually govern the land.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
He repeats that line often it's all about business,
it ain't personal.
So trying to claim sovereigntyor return your birth certificate
?
Speaker 2 (28:23):
He sees it as fundamentally misguided, futile.
Even he's quite blunt.
He points out the US is one ofthe most heavily armed
jurisdictions in the world.
You can't just declare yourselfout.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
But he also calls it a free jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
He does acknowledge that aspect the freedom to roam
from one state to the nextwithout internal borders.
Generally speaking, though, hedoes add a little note that the
Real ID Act might be changingthat dynamic somewhat.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
What about the idea some people have that you can't
go to jail for debts?
Speaker 2 (28:53):
He directly confronts that.
He says, yes, you can go tojail for certain debts, giving
child support obligations as akey example, and he reframes
jail itself.
He argues that serving time isactually a form of paying your
debt to society, specificallyfor breaking commercial laws,
not criminal laws in the way weusually think of them.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
So failing to pay child support is breaking a
commercial law.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
In his framework.
Yes, the system is designed, hebelieves, to hold the legal
person accountable for itscommercial contracts and
obligations.
If you default, there areconsequences within that
commercial system, which caninclude incarceration as a way
of settling the debt.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
OK.
So even something that feelsvery personal, like child
support, is viewed through acommercial lens.
So how does he advise people tointeract with authorities, then
Police Judges, if it's allabout business?
Speaker 2 (29:46):
His advice is consistent Approach every
interaction with any commercialentity, and he includes police
officers, judges, governmentagencies in that category.
Approach them in a purelycommercial manner.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Not emotionally, not based on personal grievances.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Definitely not.
He argues against gettingadverse or confrontational based
on personal feelings or claimsof individual sovereignty or
rights.
In the abstract, he believesthose approaches are totally
ineffective because they'reoperating on the wrong level.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
So what does a commercial manner look like in
that context?
Speaker 2 (30:16):
It means setting aside the personal, the
ideological, and focusing solelyon the commercial rules of
engagement.
What are the contracts involved?
What are the precisedefinitions being used?
What are the specificcommercial obligations at play
in that situation?
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Like negotiating a business deal almost.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
In a sense, yes, understanding the terms, the
jurisdiction, the liabilitiesaccording to the commercial
rules.
He genuinely seems to believethat if you fail to adopt this
business-oriented mindset,you'll just keep struggling.
You'll always be on the wrongside of the jurisdiction's laws
because you're trying to arguefeelings or personal rights in a
system that, in his view, onlyunderstands commercial terms.
(30:53):
It really is all business, notpersonal, for him.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
He really is challenging the traditional
paths, isn't he?
Especially what he calls theemployee mindset?
If his perspective holds anywater, what does that imply for
the future, for work, foreducation?
Speaker 2 (31:08):
It definitely raises huge questions because for Don
Kalam, the whole point isn'tjust earning a living.
It's about achieving ownershipand more control over your time
and over your life, and that, heargues, only comes from an
entrepreneurial,intelligence-driven perspective,
not from being an employee.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
And he's very critical of that employee
mindset.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
He usesers this point with statistics.
He attributes to the Bureau ofLabor and Statistics and the
Social Security Administration.
He paints a pretty bleakpicture for age 65.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
What are the numbers he cites?
Speaker 2 (31:39):
He claims that out of every 100 people reaching 65, a
shocking 55 percent are deadbroke.
Another 30 percent are actuallydead.
Only 5 percent are stillworking, just 4 percent are
considered financially secureand a tiny 1% are truly wealthy.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
Wow, whether those numbers are exact or not, the
picture is grim.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
Exactly.
He uses it to argue vehementlyagainst relying solely on a job.
He frames the traditionalcareer path as almost a setup
for failure or struggle in laterlife.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
And he connects us directly to the education system
.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Oh, absolutely.
He asserts that schools,fundamentally, were put in place
by John D Rockefeller, with theGeneral Education Board.
Rockefeller, yes.
And because schools are mostlytaught by employees, he argues,
their primary function is toprogram individuals to be
employees, not entrepreneurs.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
That's a strong claim .
He even mentions HBCUs.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
He does very provocatively.
That's a strong claim.
He even mentions HBCUs.
He does very provocatively.
He claims that even well-known,historically black colleges and
universities like Morehouse andSpelman were actually started
by Rockefeller, not byAfrican-Americans.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Wow, challenging founding, narratives there.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
His point, however controversial.
The example is that the entireeducational system, from its
roots, is designed to create acompliant workforce, not a
nation of independent businessowners and innovators.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
So he sees the education system as actively
discouraging entrepreneurship.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
How does he see the job market itself changing?
He talks about skills versusintelligence.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Yes, he draws a really sharp line there.
He argues society is rapidlyshifting.
We're moving beyond meetingjust basic skills.
He uses the old example ofdigging ditches manually and
demanding intelligence, which hedefines as the ability to
create the systems or machinesthat perform those skills, so
designing the machine that digsthe ditch, not just operating
the shovel.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
And he have modern examples.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
Yeah, he points to things happening right now Tesla
pushing for fully automatedcars.
He predicts that will massivelyreduce the need for human
mechanics.
Or the Washington Postdownsizing, replacing human
button pushers with automationin various departments.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
And he doesn't see this as necessarily bad.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
He frames it as just the natural evolution of the
commercial jurisdiction.
It's an opportunity, hesuggests, for people to become
more productive by using theirintelligence in smarter, more
leveraged ways.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
So the future demands a business mindset.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
Absolutely Rooted in intelligent problem solving
innovation strategy, not justhaving a skill that can be
automated.
This all feeds back into hiscore message you have to
proactively embraceentrepreneurship and strategic
thinking to thrive.
You have to proactively embraceentrepreneurship and strategic
thinking to thrive.
The old employee model, heargues, is becoming obsolete in
this evolving commercial world.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Okay, let's talk about law.
Don Cullen puts a lot ofemphasis on understanding the
law, but not necessarilybecoming a lawyer.
He talks about law libraries,contract law.
What's his strategy here?
Speaker 2 (34:27):
Well, what's really interesting is his core belief
in critical thinking and, maybemore importantly, applied
knowledge.
It's not just knowing stuff,it's using it effectively in
this commercial jurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
So you don't have to do it all yourself.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
No, in fact he advises the opposite in some
ways.
He says hire people smarterthan you Get good accountants,
good lawyers, don't try to bethe expert in everything.
But, he stresses, you stillneed to know enough to pick the
right experts and, crucially, todirect them effectively.
You need to understand thelandscape they're operating in.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
And law libraries fit into this.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
Yes, he places huge importance on individuals
understanding the actual laws ofthe jurisdiction.
He really encourages peoplequite passionately to go visit
their local law library.
He points out they're publiclyavailable, usually in county
courthouses.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Why To read statutes?
Speaker 2 (35:21):
Specifically, he emphasizes learning how to draft
contracts.
He sees this as a fundamentalskill for empowerment within the
system knowing how to structureagreements properly.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
And he distinguishes his approach from others.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
He does.
He says he focuses on citingthe law directly, finding the
actual statute or code.
He contrasts this with otherswho, he says, just interpret the
law, which he sees as anamateur move, something that
leads to mistakes and legaltrouble.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Stick to the text.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
Right and he brings up a key principle, especially
in what he calls the privatecontract world.
He says contract makes the law.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
Contract makes the law.
What does that mean practically?
Speaker 2 (35:59):
It means, according to him, that within a private
contract, the parties canessentially set their own rules.
He claims there are nostatutory limitations in that
private sphere, and you can evenspecify which jurisdictions
laws will govern that specificcontract.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
Wow, that sounds like a lot of power.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
He presents it as granting immense power and
flexibility, allowingindividuals to operate somewhat
outside the constraints ofconventional public law, setting
their own terms of engagementwithin the larger commercial
system.
He sees mastering contracts asa vital tool for private
individuals.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Don Kalam really draws this sharp line between
public information, which mostpeople have access to, and
private information, which hesays the wealthy use.
What are the practicalimplications of understanding
this difference?
How does it lead to freedom?
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Yeah, that public versus private distinction is
fundamental for him andconnecting it to the bigger
picture.
He really believes thatgrasping and using this private
knowledge is what allowsindividuals to operate with the
quote highest level of integrityand accountability.
It frees them, he argues, fromthe limitations and liabilities
inherent in just operatingwithin the public system.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
So what constitutes private versus public
information?
Speaker 2 (37:12):
He contends that private information, the real,
actionable knowledge about howthe commercial and legal system
actually works, especiallyregarding entities, trusts,
contracts, is effectivelyhoarded.
It's kept close andsystematically used by what he
calls informed families, theelite, the wealthy.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
And public information.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Public information, like what you get in school or
maybe mainstream media, he seesas just consumed.
People take it in but oftendon't use it effectively or it
doesn't give them the real toolsfor control.
He even labels public educationspecifically as controlled
knowledge, Controlled meaning,designed to keep people
(37:51):
operating within that publicframework, the employee mindset,
rather than empowering themwith the private knowledge
needed for genuine financial andcommercial freedom, the kind
the informed families possess.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
And he connects this private knowledge back to the
Constitution.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
He does frequently.
He often brings up Article 1,section 10 of the US
Constitution.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
What does that section say in his view?
Speaker 2 (38:11):
His interpretation is that it provides a powerful
guarantee of the right tocontract.
Crucially, it ensures that nostate can impair the obligation
of a contract.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
OK, the right to contract is protected.
How does that help theindividual?
Speaker 2 (38:24):
He argues, this constitutional protection
empowers individuals to createprivate documents, essentially
private contracts betweenthemselves and their own
entities.
Perhaps, in these documents,they can explicitly state their
status as a natural being, whilesimultaneously acknowledging
their use of commercialinstruments, like an EIN, for
(38:44):
their business dealings.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
So it legally separates the natural person
from the commercial activity.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
That's the idea he promotes.
It creates a clear legaldistinction, offering that layer
of protection and control.
This contrasts sharply withwhat he calls adhesion contracts
.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
Adhesion contracts.
What are those?
Speaker 2 (39:02):
He describes these as the typical contracts most
people encounter daily, where hesays the government trust is in
place.
Think about signing up for yourphone service or clicking I
agree to terms and conditionsonline.
Speaker 1 (39:13):
But you don't negotiate those.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Exactly.
You just adhere to them.
You have no power to negotiatethe terms Kalam implies.
This signifies a fundamentallack of control over your own
commercial life when you're onlyoperating within that public
adhesion contract framework.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
So understanding the private information using
private contracts.
That's the key.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
For Kalam yes, understanding the distinction,
actively seeking out andapplying that private knowledge
about contracts, entities andthe Constitution that's how you
navigate the commercialjurisdiction with autonomy,
integrity and ultimately achievegreater financial success and
freedom from the constraints ofthe public system.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Wow, this deep dive into Don Kalam's perspective.
It has definitely been ajourney, I mean from
understanding the US as thisinherently commercial place
where we're supposedly all borninto business.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Yeah, that's a big shift right there.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
Right To seeing things like birth certificates
and social security numbers notjust as ID, but as foundational
commercial instruments.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
Secret contracts yeah .
Speaker 1 (40:14):
And then exploring that really profound difference
he sees between just earningstuff and strategically
controlling it using tools likeEINs, trusts.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
The own nothing control everything.
Mantra.
Speaker 1 (40:24):
Exactly To manage wealth, practice legal tax
avoidance and even set up thesegenerational legacies, like he
suggests.
Figures like Trump, gates andZuckerberg have done.
Speaker 2 (40:34):
Using those high-profile examples to
illustrate the blueprint.
Speaker 1 (40:38):
It's a direct challenge, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (40:39):
To move past that employee mindset he critiques so
heavily to embraceentrepreneurship and really try
to master these private aspectsof law and finance he talks
about.
It really is a call to rethinkhow we operate within the system
.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
It seems his vision ultimately suggests that real
freedom, real financial security.
It doesn't come from ignoringthe rules or wishing them away.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
No, quite the opposite.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
It comes from a deep understanding and a really
strategic application of thecommercial rules that are
already in play, whether werealize it or not.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
Which definitely leaves you with something to
think about.
It raises this importantquestion If the wealthy, as he
claims, have always operated onthis principle of owning nothing
and controlling everything,what would happen?
What would the personal, eventhe societal implications be if
that kind of knowledge, that wayof operating became truly
widespread?
Speaker 1 (41:33):
Yeah, would it shift power dynamics?
Would it redefineaccountability completely?
Speaker 2 (41:37):
Could it?
It's a provocative thought toend on.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
It really is.
So what stands out to youlistening today from this deep
dive?
We really hope thisconversation has maybe given you
a fresh perspective, a new lensto look at your own financial
world.
Speaker 2 (41:50):
Maybe sparked an aha moment, perhaps new lens to look
at your own financial world.
Speaker 1 (41:52):
Maybe sparked an aha moment, perhaps, hopefully, an
aha moment about theopportunities that might be
available when you start tounderstand, or at least consider
, these deeper rules of the gameas Don Kalan presents them.
Keep digging, keep learningExactly, keep diving deeper into
the topics that spark yourinterest and keep gathering that
knowledge quickly butthoroughly.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com