Ideally, one should contribute as much as she/he takes. Of course, that's impossible and impractical.
I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly.
That's the problem.
You mean the richer people are, the ratio of their contribution to taking grows? That does not seem possible, because that will not make the person rich in the first place.
But the problem is the ratio of their taking far outpace the contribution.
Yes, parasite, and what happens to parasites which are too successful?
If my US company shifts labor to India, do we assume it is bad simply because the US doesn't receive those wages to stimulate the US economy? Does this benefit India though?
I think your argument depends on perspective, from US point of view this situation is bad, from India's it isn't bad. From the wealthy person's doing this, it simply benefits him/her.
I don't know how to solve this and completely agree with the argument but it is technically flawed.
Regardless of how rich I am, I still need to eat and live and put clothes on my back. Are these not contributions?
Or are you suggesting that the wealthiest are parasites simply because they should contribute more to society than someone less financially well off?