Quote:
Dont they spend the cash in walmarts, KFCs etc?
A lot of it does get spent with these companies and this isn't a problem, the problem is that these large corporations avoid paying taxes back into the economy, instead the excess profits are siphoned off by the shareholders.
Quote:
Money wasnt taken out of communities by those rich guys per se, it was given to them. Those economies got something in return
The economy often doesn't get anything in return other than a pie that some guy eats, if the companies were taxed adequately then the economy would get a slice of (the monetary value of) that pie back whether it was eaten or not.
Quote:
So how exactly do the richest get richer, if the economy doesnt work?
Because everybody else gets poorer, so while the rich manage to maintain most of their wealth by not investing and hoarding cash which sucks the money out of the system, the poor can't earn a living and so although they don't necessarily have more money they do have a much bigger share of the wealth because they still have their cash while much of the population doesn't even have a job.
Quote:
So, you think that the rich get richer, so you presumably realize that they invest their money. You also seem to think that the poor just use the money for consumption (provided by big companies owned by said rich folk), otherwise they'd get richer. If they spent the cash in local communities, rich wouldnt get rich, now would they?. How exactly is taking money from those who invest and giving it to those who just consume gonna help economy, longterm?
I'm not suggesting to give all the money to the poor, I'm suggesting that there's a healthy balance and that this balance has been thrown out because the rich (generally the investors) have taken too much and now the poor (generally the consumers) have too little. An extreme example of this happening recently was in Zimbabwe under Mugabe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverPlay
You really sound like one, mainly because you don't understand that the amount of wealth in the world is not fixed. Wealth is created by people in order to be able to profit from it.
Do you think Steve Jobs should have paid more taxes to "compensate for his profit"? He created an incredible amount of wealth. Same goes for lots of people that might not risked their capital if your socialist ideas were in place, having a poorer world as a result.
I don't think you fully understand how wealth creation works. Steve Jobs didn't create any wealth, he simply created products that people were prepared to exchange their wealth for. The banks create the wealth through fractional reserve banking (look it up) or quantitative easing (In essence, printing money).
I don't know how much tax Steve Jobs paid but if he paid as much as other people who earn that much did then he probably paid very little as a percentage of his total income, if he paid less than say ~40% of his total earnings in tax then yes, I think he should have contributed more. I don't think it's fair that those who take the most out of economies contribute less as a percentage of their income in taxes, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by soon2bepro
Your first sentence is correct, economics is not that complex. Especially not as much as the wealthy, the media, the politicians and world leaders would like us to believe.
However, from that sentence on, you go on to propose precisely the views that the wealthy, the media, the politicians and world leaders want us to believe.
The wealthy want us to believe that they should pay more in taxes?