Since Mr. Le Fort didn’t respond (yet) to your Response, I’ll take the opportunity to butt-in.

It is simply wrong to state, as you do, “One might speculate that the poor are more likely to spend on consumables that get counted in GDP, while the rich will buy capital equipment that doesn’t.” In the first place, purchases of capital equipment are counted as part of GDP, as investment. (For that matter, net changes in the total inventory of businesses are counted in the GDP.) Secondly, “the rich” don’t buy “capital equipment.” Capital equipment is bought by businesses to produce goods and services.

All of the purchases of the rich are counted in the GDP. Yachts that cost hundreds of millions of dollars are right there along with every loaf of bread that is sold.

That gets us to the linkage between income and the optimal functioning of the capitalist economy, which was the goal of Keynes’s proposals. That would be achieved buy ensuring the existence of a healthy middle class (‘the poor’ for him being a separate, moral issue) because they will ‘naturally’ consume, save, and speculate in proportions that are optimal for the functioning of the capitalist economy. That is to be achieved by establishing a progressive income tax and using that money to subsidize the middle class [transportation, education, housing (loans), starting small businesses, etc.].

Both of the following scenarios are the same in terms of GDP. In one a rich household spends $250,000 dollars redoing the kitchen, buying very expensive appliances and finishings. In the other scenario ten households spend $25,000 each redoing their kitchens, all buying less expensive appliances and finishings. Which scenario makes for a more vibrant, healthier economy?