Your seeing money as a measure of inefficiency is based on flawed premises, notwithstanding your pre-emptive "in a lot of ways" self-cut slack.

Money is just another product, and in that sense it isn't special. People sell their money for goods and services when they deem it profitable to them. For instance, I could build my own house, but the time required to learn and then build it is more than the time it takes me to trade my (preferred) labor for money, then use that money to trade for a housemaker's (preferred) labor, because people are better (ie. more efficient) at what they prefer to do. The housemaker accepts to trade their labor for money because they also want things for which it is more profitable for the housemaker to build a house for money and then trade that money for what they want. The process of trading something with someone else for something you prefer results in what we call profit.

This also means when you say "moneyless transactions like BitCoin", you're mistaken; bitcoin is money. Money is any product for which there is a large enough network of people willing to accept that product as payment for labor. So the rise of BitCoin won't decrease the exchange rate of money, because BitCoin will become money by definition, since it will be used by people to arbitrage their time in a profitable way as explained in the previous paragraph.

Then you say wealth will increase because machines can make things. But the more you have of something, the more its value goes down. This is supply and demand. So you don't get automatic wealth just because machines can produce, for instance, a bunch of tires, and a bunch of cars, if there's not enough people wanting those cars with tires to self-drive them around. That means customers will assign less value to tires and cars, as the overabundance of tires and cars drive their own prices down.

I haven't heard of WinCo, but if you're saying they're more profitable than Walmart, then I should hope they drive Walmart out of business. I have no hatred for Walmart, mind you; but I do have a love for better things, and charging cheaper prices than competitors while making more money seems to me like a win-win for everyone involved. If WinCo's business model really works, and yet it hasn't displaced Walmart, and assuming what you say is true, then I'm lead to believe other forces (likely regulatory) are keeping this outcome from being brought about. I'd appreciate if you could educate me as to why WinCo stores aren't popping up everywhere and displacing Walmart (or maybe they are and I'm ignorant).

I'm still having trouble understanding how you got so quickly to the conclusion that "the solution that I see is to raise taxes". I also find it weird that you say things like "the community makes nothing other than taxes". The community is constituted of people. People can make money by selling their labor. Why do they expect Valve to work for them? I'm confused.

Also when you talk about US's high tax rates (70-90%) in its highest growth decades (1950s and 60s), you should make sure to mention that they also had more loopholes than we have today, which means in effect that companies in general were paying nowhere near the official tax rate in taxes (they were paying around 30%). See [1] for a page with links to the studies. This is one of the most common economics history fallacy floating around today.

Your analysis of spreading over GDP to the population don't take into account the change effect; that once you do that, people's behaviors change unexpectedly in a way that you can't guarantee that the GDP will remain anywhere close to what it is. Numbers look into the past, not the future. The GDP now only means how much was produced given the variables in place. If the variables were different (eg. more income distribution) then the outcome would be different (either more or less, or the same for different reasons). But because Economics fails to produce falsifiable and reproducible theories, we can never know for sure. With that in mind, number gymnastics as you do it is baseless.

[1] - http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/21/krugmans-twinkie-defense/