>>10910749>How is it productive to lock away the vast majority of your wealth in banks overseas for it to never be seen again by the economy?
You do not know how banks work. Do you know why they have interest rates? It's because they proactively use your money for loaning, mortgages, investments, etc. >Percentage-wise, the poor put far more of their wealth directly back into the economy upon earning it.
Hence why they are usually poor as they lack the skills necessary to save and invest money. In numerical value, people who are even within the range of the lower-middle class to the upper classes do a better job on saving and contribite significantly more to taxes and the economy.>They would much rather see an extra zero at the end of one of their bank statements than stimulate the economy in any way.
They are already stimulating the economy by investing. Just having a corporation that opens production facilities is already stimulating economic activity. This isn't taking into consideration the products and services wealthy people use/buy, as this spurs the demand for production of luxury items/ services. >If your statement was true, trickle-down would have worked. Or are you one of those Kochsuckers that believes that it did despite history being incredibly clear on the subject?
You are genuinely unaware of your own biases? You seem to assume a lot and use very specific terms that make you fit the stereotypical- economically illiterate, people who try to argue with false information that is easily disprovable. If I am wealthy, just buying a yatch for millions is already stimulating economic activity providing jobs to hundreds of people: ranging from the production of parts, to designers, painters, assembly line workers, etc. This isn't taking into consideration the demand I'm creating that allows a business to create yatchs for a profit. Meaning there is a job for a CEO, COO, accountants (receivable, payable, etc.) customer service, inventory, etc.