I don't mean that if rich people had less money because of increased taxes, but if they made less to begin with.
Or do you think this is completely wrong.
Tell me why for either opinion.
Texas Underdog
Favorite Answer
Unless the "rich" people bury their money in a jar in the back yard, it is still "out there" in circulation. Where do you think that the banks get the money to make you a house or car loan?
The "rich" spend money like the rest of us poor slobs. They just buy more expensive stuff, like mansions, limousines, yachts, and the like.
The kind of stuff that gives the poor people who build this stuff a job.
They also start or invest in companies that make all kinds of things which most of us buy every day, which gives those companies the capitol to hire more poor people.
If you took all the money in the world and distributed it equally between everybody in the world, I would guess within 10 or 20 years, that most of us would have spent it all with little or nothing to show for it, and the most of today's "rich" would have once again become "rich" because they know how to invest their money.
There would be a few exceptions to this theory, of course, but for the majority it would be true.
===================================================
topink
That's a complicated question, and the only answer I can think of is yes and no. Like, if a company makes a decision to lay off 100 employees that earn about 25,000 each, then turns around and gives 3 executives bonuses totaling 2.5 million, the answer is obvious.
But if a rich person could say to the government, "Look, I'm going to invest $25 million to create a company that will create hundreds of jobs in a community, and the government doesn't give that person a break on taxes fro doing that, the answer on the other end is obvious.
So I can see both sides of the argument.
But I tend to root for the underdogs, and I don't think just cutting taxes for the rich has helped us, not in the past 8 years, nor during Reagans' term. The government spend just as much (deficit spending) and the rich bought more property, raised rents, bought yachts and found loopholes to hide their money, so we even had to borrow money for our national defense, which should not be the case.
Anonymous
Many times, wealth is made by being productive no matter what your occupation might be. Wealthy PI lawyers make theirs by winning large settlements for their clients and then sharing with them that settlement. If the lawyer loses a case, he gets nothing under that scenario, so his work could come up dry.
It's usually an Insurance company that is paying out this money, or self insured corporations. The cases are often drawn out so the accused has time to purchase annuities that mature quickly and make enough to cover the debt. There are no losers either way.
Often, wealthy people get wealthy with original ideas. A new item hits the market, such as the Barbie doll, hoola hoop, or pet rock, and the sales fly off the chart. These are sales that may not have been otherwise, new sales ! The designer gets rich, the manufacturer gets rich, the retailer gets rich, and the consumer is out $5, and everybody is happy. If that $5 hadn't been spent in this manner, it would probably just go into the gas tank, or wasted on a lottery ticket.
?
So if you took a CEO that makes $50 million annually for a company who's work force mostly makes minimum wage and only paid the CEO $5 mil and gave the workers a better wage? How does this not make sense? Would you say that the $5 mil is not incentive enough for the CEO. He would take his extraordinary skills to a free country? Please. We would all be better off because the economy as a whole would be better with a healthier middle class. The only ones who benefit from a super rich class are the super rich.
Isn't it about time we talked about capping salaries? The highest paid person in a company can only make a certain amount more than the lowest paid person. It still leaves some room for greedy capitalists to prosper, but everyone else will prosper as well....and if the workers know that they will share in the success of the company, won't they do a better job?
Mister2-15-2
I very strongly believe it is correct, but it's all in why they are less wealthy. Unions helping workers get better wages, and anti-trust enforcement are best ways to spread the wealth. Not concentration of wealth buying up competition getting anti-free markets laws pass right and farther right Big is bad. Watched Chairman of Fed in Banking Committee few days ago and it was like watching owners of the company store siting around the coal stove deciding how much there were going to rape the consumer, they never discussed how big banks are hurting competition. Take my taxes and Rape me Personally. The TARP in the long run will make everyone poorer. People create jobs to make money there is that extra comfortable balance sheet that might get some related dead wood hired, but overwhelmingly people are hired to increase profits, by good business people that put something away for lean years. The bad ones go from government program to government program and blow everything they get.