It also slows economic growth over time, because most of the tax money is redistributed by the government, not invested, while the wealthy generally invest their wealth.
It is much more likely that the wealthy will use the same money instead to buy another yacht or private jet, which while also providing some jobs is ultimately a net waste for society.
Not that yachts should be banned, but economic policy should never encourage such spending.
Would the high end suppliers of luxury items see a reduction in the very small numbers of people able to buy their top end products? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Probably no in the scheme of the entire economy or even the luxury industry affected.
People downgrading from their $100m yacht to a modest $95m yacht isn't going to destroy the yacht industry.
Job loss is a net positive in many cases.
Jobs are a temporary, unpleasant condition of having to do shit you'd rather not do, because some idiot schmucks decided wage slavery is a natural progression from outright slavery and serfdom.
Why do I or anyone need to do unpleasant work unless it fulfills irrefutably necessary needs of my community, such as agriculture, medicine, construction of shelter, raising children etc.
Building yachts, pyramids and I'd argue the majority of the 'work' being done in cities world-wide is not fulfilling communal necessities and should therefore be abandoned.
This is not some pipe dream, it is an inevitable conclusion - humans don't like living in a system where their natural desires are constantly suppressed or left unfulfilled. There'll come a 'prophet' of sorts that will explain the human condition plainly and simply, explain where humans have gone wrong for thousands of years and propose viable alternatives enabled by science and technology that will seem obvious in hindsight. It will involve humans getting to be their animal selves and live simpler, happier lives, enabled by advanced science and technology that serve human needs, not individual needs of idiot schmucks with an inferiority complex.
Yes, the same magic that makes everything worthwhile appear.
Ask any mother what her job title was when she made a baby appear and proceeded to care for it.
I was mostly responding to the part about money not entering the economy again, I was then lazy and introduced another topic into the discussion without comparing both sides.
Most people would consider money directed at things that don't benefit the citizens (graft, boondoggles, arguably a bunch of things on the defense budget) more than the money would have had it stayed in the hands of whoever had it in the first place. Obviously graft and pork trickles down but does it really trickle down more than a chunk of money in a bank account but does it really trickle down more than if it had been spent on a yacht? Is hand-waving away efficiency (relative to whatever goal you're spending toward) losses as some sort of under-handed welfare really something we want to accept?
Yachts and private jets are obvious symbols of unequal wealth, but they are also objects that require huge amounts of ongoing spending that goes into the pockets of middle class workers.
Making sure a yacht or jet is ready to go when and where it is wanted requires a few full-time jobs. As strange as it may sound, I don't think economic policy should discourage such spending. Perhaps just be neutral on it?
The problem is of diminishing returns - it would have a disproportionate negative effect on the poor and a minimal impact on accelerating growth, so it would be considered one of the most inefficient ways to achieve the latter.
If the money redistributed by government is given to poorer people, what do they do with it? Are you suggesting they save it somewhere it cannot be invested in the economy?
[1] https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/capital-consumpt...
Of course not. However, the original question was about the government redistributing resources from capital ("the wealthy") to consumers, which would have the direct effect of shifting the balance from capital investment to consumption.
The percentage of savings to consumption can go down without the absolute value going down.
Infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other public services count as investments.