Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h
But someone made $$ selling the Yacht. And employees were paid by the company who made the Yacht
So instead we could give this money to the government and they could distribute the money to the Yacht maker and his employees who are now out of a job….??
The Rich buying things is good for the economy . The Rich investing their money in companies is good for the economy. The only thing that isn’t good is buying speculative real estate and borrowing against the equity - that doesn’t really stimulate anything
I still don’t know the problem we are debating - bringing up to ability for the lowest earners to earn more ? Bringing the middle class closer to the 1%. Bringing everyone closer to the 0.01%, or just trying to bring the 0.01% lower and give their money to the government for re-distribution
Taxing the “rich” (and I still don’t know what the definition of rich is” doesn’t solve any of the problems. If you want to advocate for higher minimum wages, mandatory retirement contributions, better education - those are all things that have a real tangible benefit ( or could - hence discussions )
Bill Gates has done a lot more with his money for sanitation and clean drinking water then the government would have if it taxed him and distributed to their friends and family and people to buy PS5s while sitting on their couches
|
So the money in your example still gets spent.
It gets spent on food and rent and clothing. After the 2008 recession it was found that giving cash to middle and lower income people was one of the beat forms of stimulus because they spend it. So in general the economy is better off when poor people spend money than rich people spend money. The question would be which is a more efficient way of providing stimulus and productivity.
Now there certainly is an open question on whether Gates charitable work is better that just economic stimulus but that type of charitable spending is the exception.