4 ms·

There doesn't seem to much in the article to suggest it doesn't trickle down, so the headline is rather sensationalist. They are saying that lots of it goes off

by sambe 11y ago

There doesn't seem to much in the article to suggest it doesn't trickle down, so the headline is rather sensationalist. They are saying that lots of it goes off-shore, but unspent wealth will not "trickle down" anyway (granted, there is perhaps more incentive to spend if the alternative is getting taxed, but the extent is unclear). These people are likely still spending quite a substantial amount back into the economy (and tax, although obviously nowhere near what they "should" be). I do think there is general agreement that trickle down is not as effective as "advertised" but that doesn't mean zero effect. It's also worth noting that the headline figures are total amount saved offshore across all countries, not the tax on that amount (or its returns) for a given country and its alternative internal tax structures.

Nutmog 11y ago
Agreed. If they ever spend it, it'll trickle down. If they don't spend it, it'll be increasing the value of all the dollars that everybody else has - they've basically lending money to the rest of the world until such time as they decide to spend what they have, then it'll cause some inflation and the poor people will effectively be paying back that loan. If they never spend it, then everyone else wins. Setting fire to money or burying it in a hole is like donating it to everyone else who also has money. I don't understand what the problem is with a small number of people having a lot of money. What harm are they doing? Or is it simply plain old-fashioned jealousy?
- vinay427 11y ago
  > Or is it simply plain old-fashioned jealousy? Please don't make the mistake of thinking this is jealousy. There are plenty of wealthy Americans who generally oppose the wealth inequality we have today, and I can't imagine they are jealous of themselves for believing that. I think that if one is empathetic to those who grow up in different environments (whether it be of a different race, religion, or income bracket) then the realization is that they should have equal opportunities to succeed. That, in my opinion, doesn't seem very likely if so much money remains at the hands of those in the top wealth echelons. Could the nation succeed by putting business interests first? Perhaps, but at what cost to the vast majority of its people? To some, that cost is not acceptable.
- chillwaves 11y ago
  > What harm are they doing? You mean using their relative advantage as capital owners to manipulate commodity markets that literally causes millions of people to starve? That's just one example. But besides literally depriving people of life, what harm are they doing? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-real-hunger-games-how-banks-gamble-on-food-prices-and-the-poor-lose-out-7606263.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-real-hu...

by sambe 11y ago

Nutmog 11y ago

Agreed. If they ever spend it, it'll trickle down. If they don't spend it, it'll be increasing the value of all the dollars that everybody else has - they've basically lending money to the rest of the world until such time as they decide to spend what they have, then it'll cause some inflation and the poor people will effectively be paying back that loan. If they never spend it, then everyone else wins. Setting fire to money or burying it in a hole is like donating it to everyone else who also has money. I don't understand what the problem is with a small number of people having a lot of money. What harm are they doing? Or is it simply plain old-fashioned jealousy?

vinay427 11y ago
> Or is it simply plain old-fashioned jealousy? Please don't make the mistake of thinking this is jealousy. There are plenty of wealthy Americans who generally oppose the wealth inequality we have today, and I can't imagine they are jealous of themselves for believing that. I think that if one is empathetic to those who grow up in different environments (whether it be of a different race, religion, or income bracket) then the realization is that they should have equal opportunities to succeed. That, in my opinion, doesn't seem very likely if so much money remains at the hands of those in the top wealth echelons. Could the nation succeed by putting business interests first? Perhaps, but at what cost to the vast majority of its people? To some, that cost is not acceptable.
chillwaves 11y ago
> What harm are they doing? You mean using their relative advantage as capital owners to manipulate commodity markets that literally causes millions of people to starve? That's just one example. But besides literally depriving people of life, what harm are they doing? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-real-hunger-games-how-banks-gamble-on-food-prices-and-the-poor-lose-out-7606263.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-real-hu...