토론

이 질문에 답하기

토론 질문

Should rich people spend ?

Skim through this article:

link

Now I can't stand John Terry for a host of other reasons so I didn't really care that he was getting some stick. But what the 기사 was highlighting made me think:
Just because someone is incredibly wealthy, why does they have to spend the utmost on things (when the same can be bought for less) ?

What was wrong with Terry spending his money in Poundworld ? If I had earned even a fraction of the money he earns I'd still probably be doing exactly the same thing (I am a self-confessed stingy bastard and a Scrooge).
 Ryuuikari posted over a year ago
next question »

토론 답변

whiteflame55 said:
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to be stingy when one is rich. If they want luxury, they can have it, but they certainly don't need to engage in expensive tastes if they don't want to.

Though that's the "freedom" argument, and frankly, it's boring. So let's talk about social obligation. Someone earning that kind of cash needs to contribute back to the economy that is benefitting then so heavily. The fact is that while putting away a good chunk of change is good for banks (if they use banks and not offshore accounts), it's simply lacking in contribution. In this case, I'm not arguing that they give 더 많이 to charity, just that they contribute 더 많이 to the economy 의해 participating in it with 더 많이 of their money, making larger and/or 더 많이 expensive purchases.

But this isn't straightforward. The fact is that luxury items, which usually cost most, are often sold 의해 the very rich to the very rich. One might ask why that matters. The reason is because that money is, effectively, not circulating through the larger economy. It's staying with the high earners, and thus is benefitting them only. One might argue that this trickles down through increased numbers of jobs, increased wages, and 더 많이 spending 의해 the rich. To that I say: bullshit. Many companies are now doing better than they ever have, and their response to that unprecedented growth is to do little to increase their jobs 또는 wages. Trickle down only really works when those rich people spend 더 많이 of their money in the larger economy, which isn't the case if they're only buying luxury products. And this we've circled back around.

Well, that took a few turns, but suffice it to say that, based on social obligation, spending habits like his have to be increased and diversified. Investment is beneficial in its own way, but if we're just talking about commodity spending habits that exclude these, my message to these people is, make 더 많이 out of your money than just funds for yourself.
 select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
Since when did the argument of freedom become boring instead of protecting one of the most fundamental human rights? Besides, I agree with your argument that spending makes the economy grow. However, you're forgetting that the bank needs people to trust them with their money for the economy to grow as well. Think about it, if rich people spend "averagely" and keep a large amount of their money with the bank, the bank is able to give loans to people who don't have that much money who then can buy things they need as well.
Chaann94 posted over a year ago
*
The argument of freedom is straightforward and simple: an ability to spend as we please is a fundamental right, especially under a capitalist system. It's simple, it's one-sided, therefore it's boring to me. With regards to the bank line, I'm not arguing that bank investments are bad. Quite the contrary, I think they're a simple and effective way to introduce money into the economy. The problem is that the rich don't tend to put their money in banks. They tend to have offshore accounts, placing their money in locations that reduce the tax burden on it. That removes the money from the economy entirely.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
Hiding 3 comments... click to show.
*
If I was just answering this 질문 to make my actual opinion apparent, I would say no. It sets a bad standard for making demands of the rich, removes their capacity to make decisions on what they do with their money, and, no matter where we set it, the would be highly arbitrary on the amount of income we'd determine to be "rich." It is, however, an interesting 질문 in general of what, if anything, the rich owe their respective countries. Even after making the argument, I'm not certain that the rich owe their countries anything, and if we do think that they owe something, how do we define when they pay their debt? It's a difficult question.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
Chaann94 said:
It's weird how people are allowed to create an 기사 that causes a 토론 (not referring to the one here, but in England) about whether a rich man is allowed to buy cheap things.

If this 기사 was about whether a poor man is allowed to spend money on expensive things, there would be a nation-wide riot about ethics, political correctness and whatnot.
 select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
Carolinaproud26 said:
They should give to the needy
 select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
next question »
Cookies help us bring you Fanpop. By using Fanpop, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More Got It!