Board 8 > Hypothetically do you think if you took all the money from all the billionaires

(+) Yeah! (+)

have heard others have this opinion and heard a news talk radio host in my area with this exact same belief. Do you believe this?

Uh, yes easily. You wouldn't even have to include the millionaires in this!

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Uh, yes easily. You wouldn't even have to include the millionaires in this!

why do you think that?

It would probably eliminate poverty on Earth, not just USA.

It will eliminate it for a short while. Then the cycle will repeat. The system itself is broken and should be replaced.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Uh, yes easily. You wouldn't even have to include the millionaires in this!

Im not sure that works. The combined net worth of all the billionaires in the US is like 2.4 trillion. Divide that among the population of the country and thats less than $8000 per person. Thats not going to take someone out of poverty for very long.
---

40 million Americans live in poverty.

Poverty line is $13K a year (or lower if living with a family).

So that means $520B (or lower) to eliminate poverty, at most, assuming the people living in poverty have 0 money.

Which is a lot less than what American billionaires have!
---

no.

poverty is based on income. a one time payment doesn't make you not in poverty.

not to mention a ton of other things of which ulti touched on a few

---

Only temporarily

---

I am not saying that's what we should actually do, as there are far more nuanced things to do to help people, just that it works!

---

metaIslug posted...

This is not a question of "do you think".This a question that has an objective answer and the answer is 'yes'

Actually, the objective answer would be no, since the only thing that could be distributed would be whatever the billionaires have currently liquid - which wouldn't be enough to cover the presumed cost. You can't redistribute the perceived value of a company.

---

metaIslug posted...

This is not a question of "do you think".This a question that has an objective answer and the answer is 'yes'

More like it has an objective answer and the answer is no.

Just because everyone starts with the same amount of money doesn't mean that they'll spend it in "equal" fashions. Within a year half the population would be virtually broke again, and the money will have filtered into a select few. In other words, it would be just like it is now.

---

Sure for like 12 months until all the financially irresponsible people blow what they got and we slowly get back to where we started

lol no

---

There have been articles written about the mindset of poor people. They would be broke again in a very short time because a lot of them just dont have a good grasp of financial skills. Its not a failing or anything, its just a lack of life experience from always living paycheck to paycheck.

metaIslug posted...

I doubt that. Plus the question isn't asking what would happen in the future

Then it's not very interesting.

But either way if you took literally all the money then wouldn't they be poor? So not "eliminated" entirely then

---

Uglyface2 posted...

There have been articles written about the mindset of poor people. They would be broke again in a very short time because a lot of them just dont have a good grasp of financial skills. Its not a failing or anything, its just a lack of life experience from always living paycheck to paycheck.

We really need to teach young adults life skills like budgeting, cooking, how a mortgage/loan works, etc.
It's really not a difficult concept

If you actually brought everyone out of poverty, let's say by invading the rest of the world, taking all their money, and redistributing it among Americans, still poverty would return shortly.

---

If we took all their money wouldnt they be in poverty?

---

No.

First off a lot of the 'wealth' these people have is not fiscal but in things like property and stocks and the like. That is different from direct physical wealth.

That aside, no it wouldn't. You see, here's the thing. Money, in of itself, has no value. It's merely an intermediary of trade. The only reason we consider a $100 bank note to have value but not a $100 monopoly note is because our government does not recognize the latter as a valid form of currency. So what does decide the value of a bill? There are multiple theories but the two most consistent are 'the value of an hours worth of labor' and 'scarcity'. In either theory this example would be ruinous.

Under the first the value of a currency is basically what it would take to get someone to do an hours worth of labor. If there was a sudden influx of cash across the board we'd see people suddenly become well set for a lengthy period of time, if not life, and refuse to work unless they got paid much more than they currently are. This would result in other people charging more and, thusly, the value of the dollar collapsing.

Under the second theory the thing that makes money hold its value is the fact that it's in limited supply. This would mean that, if a sudden and massive influx of cash came to a ton of people, it would suddenly become exceedingly common and, thusly, no one would really value money anymore. You'd need to shell out tons of cash for basic needs because it would become cheaper to use money for wallpaper than actual wallpaper.

This isn't idle concern either. We've seen this happen many times before in economic collapses. It's why, when it happens, everyone becomes a millionaire because a million dollars is suddenly worth less than a bag of cheetos. This isn't to say I approve of the massive wealth gap between the wealthy and the common man in America; just that the solution is NOT 'take their money and redistributed it'. That's like saying 'my house is on fire' so the solution is 'break the dam and flood multiple cities to put it out'.

Edit: In case you're wondering: I think that a huge part of the problem is the fact that the wealthy don't spend money in the same way the poor do. A lot of them just sit on their wealth meaning it accumulates and doesn't get reinvested into the system and the only reason they part with it is when a product comes along that the average person wouldn't be able to afford. This results in bonkers prices for products and, when combined with a stagnant wage and increasing difficulty of entry into the middle/upper classes, results in a poverty-stricken lower class that can't afford rent let alone to buy a house while the wealthy have, like, three mansions.

---

What if I told you that we could make everyone's lives better if we didn't seize the wealth of the rich, but just taxed them fairly?

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

What if I told you that we could make everyone's lives better if we didn't seize the wealth of the rich, but just taxed them fairly?

Well, unfortunately, part of the issue with taxing is that if you raise them up too high than you get a bunch of rich people either fleeing the nation or exploiting loopholes like overseas bank accounts. That's far worse than simply keeping them at a lower tax rate. Plus I'm pretty sure the rich do have to pay a lot in taxes. However, a lot of them are CEO's of companies capable of earning more than they lose. The irony is that raising the taxes there can kill small businesses whose profit margins can be, like, 1%.

---

This isn't an opinion topic, it's a math problem. Yes, we could take all poor families out of poverty. Whether we could keep them out is another story.


---

Yes but skip all the mexicans cuz they aren't good with money

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

What if I told you that we could make everyone's lives better if we didn't seize the wealth of the rich, but just taxed them fairly?

And then what

---

metaIslug posted...

I doubt that. Plus the question isn't asking what would happen in the future

Then I guess you and I have different interpretations of what it means to take someone out of poverty. Buying someone dinner will take away their hunger for a time. Buying them a week of groceries will do so for even longer. But it doesn't remove the need for them to provide for themselves.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

And then what

We spend it on things like fixing roadways, better quality drinking water, better pay for teachers, more police, more parks, etc.

No I'm kidding we just give it to the people who will blow it all overnight on shit they dont need

LadyVyxx posted...

We spend it

You and I are Congress in this scenario? That kinda ruins my point, but I do admit that I would be so hyped for taxes if I was Congress

---

The math is less than 8k per person: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/78529555/936588050

Assuming at least 1 person currently has less than $5k, it will not completely eliminate poverty

---

MarkS222222222222222 posted...

The math is less than 8k per person: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/78529555/936588050

Assuming at least 1 person currently has less than $5k, it will not completely eliminate poverty

Only if you give it to everyone, instead of only the people in poverty

---

What you think of North Korea? Because that how your country would be treated like, like thieves, because you just stole money from several assets and distributed it randomly.

---

MZero11 posted...

Only if you give it to everyone, instead of only the people in poverty

That's how the question is stated

---

Keep in mind that $8k per person varies heavily in some countries they work for what any american would consider ridiculously low wages giving those people $8000 USD Is a huge deal it's almost like giving an American a million.

Yes in American $8000 isn't much, but in some of the poorest countries on earth it is a life changing amount.

getting rid of social media and and the automated society would be a better idea

---

This topic has legs because poverty- as well as ending poverty- isn't clearly defined. We could talk in circles forever because our definitions will be different.

There will always be the mentality ill, who can't or won't work. Even if we handed the 13% of the population that is in poverty 80 thousand dollars, some of them will fall right back down.

So, poverty would be 100% gone for a little while, and it wouldn't all come back quickly, but some of it would

---

In that sense, providing certain goods and services for free probably works better.
---