2 ms·

You seem to be arguing against high spending, and using that to condemn high income. The thing is, spending and income are two different things. And your income

You seem to be arguing against high spending, and using that to condemn high income. The thing is, spending and income are two different things. And your income tax is going to prevent me from investing my money in a positive manner. So I think that what you're really arguing for is high sales tax. But your argument doesn't work anyway. You're really only pointed out the truism of decreasing marginal utility while assuming that the spending that can be positively identified is more efficient than whatever the other guy can't remember. You've provided no argument for why that would actually be true. If those having higher income are spending their money less efficiently than those who have less, then how do the former group achieve and maintain those high incomes?

makecheck 18y ago
I'm aware that (for instance) a rich man is going to have to shop somewhere, and whatever he buys -- even if it's useless and pointless, or it costs much more than it should -- will put money back into the economy. The question is, where in the economy does that money usually go? In a lot of cases, employees do not directly see the benefits of their company's success, other than to continue having a job. The money would seem to directly benefit shareholders, who are largely rich people who decided to "risk" buying a piece of a company. Yes, the people who invest should see some of the return. And yes, the company probably wouldn't exist (along with all its jobs) without these investors. But the gains from the company are likely only to benefit other rich people, other shareholders. And investments are going to concentrate on ventures that are likely to be profitable, not in things that are more basic, such as building roads. Tax money tends to favor the stuff like building roads. The money has to be there, though arguably the government may need to become more efficient than it is. I answered in a different post how people become rich...sometimes it definitely is hard work, but a lot of times it is just luck and opportunity.

makecheck 18y ago

I'm aware that (for instance) a rich man is going to have to shop somewhere, and whatever he buys -- even if it's useless and pointless, or it costs much more than it should -- will put money back into the economy. The question is, where in the economy does that money usually go? In a lot of cases, employees do not directly see the benefits of their company's success, other than to continue having a job. The money would seem to directly benefit shareholders, who are largely rich people who decided to "risk" buying a piece of a company. Yes, the people who invest should see some of the return. And yes, the company probably wouldn't exist (along with all its jobs) without these investors. But the gains from the company are likely only to benefit other rich people, other shareholders. And investments are going to concentrate on ventures that are likely to be profitable, not in things that are more basic, such as building roads. Tax money tends to favor the stuff like building roads. The money has to be there, though arguably the government may need to become more efficient than it is. I answered in a different post how people become rich...sometimes it definitely is hard work, but a lot of times it is just luck and opportunity.