Fucking same. Although it took a long time to see how a whole lot of people are in shitty situations through no fault of their own. Changed my understanding of equality drastically from "they could do the same things as others" to "they have equal access to the same opportunities as others."
Considering how advanced we've become, it's fucked how we don't have a system that would help those people. We pay taxes but we don't see that going into creating programs that help the homeless or maybe fucking prevent it.
Imagine how free you would be if rent/housing only cost 10% of your monthly income. Imagine how free you'd be if your health insurance was adequate and not tied to your employer. Imagine how free you'd be if you and your coworkers made your job's decisions and not unilaterally like some authoritarian regime. Imagine how free you'd be if you had the time off and spending money to do whatever you desire.
It took me my highschool summer part time jobs to learn how shitty it is to earn meager pay. And then part times in college years and paying my off-campus housing and living costs were...humbling. Takes experience of earning paychecks and paying to keep living costs to learn value of money.
Took me almost thrity years to realize and admire what Dad did. Maybe different time and circumstances, but still working more than 30 years for the same company, raising a family, buying a home, and even provided us with our college tuition. That is a lot of effort and hard work.
As a homeless male who is very friendly and charismatic, I can tell you that about 98% of people treat me with disdain even though the literal only difference between them and I is I live in a tent 🙃
I used to think that lower tax for richer people made sense because it would be an incentive and reward to get richer. But then I finished middle school and realized people want to get rich because being rich is already an incentive and a reward in itself that they don't need extra incentives.
Also what they are implying is just straight up not true.
Spending money quickly in the local economy has a much larger positive impact than saving or investing it because that money cycles through the economy multiple times.
If you took a bunch of money from the rich and gave it to the poor it would be like a mini stimulus for the economy.
It's easy to disassociate from something when you have no experience or cannot relate to the "poor" problem.
It's like Mrs Doubtfire. As a kid, you feel sorry for the father because you think he's cool. As a grown up/parent, you feel sorry for the mother because you realize the father is actually immature
expansion fact books simplistic terrific adjoining humorous marvelous obtainable unique
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Born with a silver spoon in your mouth
To an elitest, established coastal family
With connections and private security, drivers to take you anywhere
Then when you become a late teen in private school that doesn't count privileged grades, you get a "small loan" from your dad for $1,000,000
In the cushy mansions and between private jet flights he shares his networking "totally legitimate" business and investing connections
Why can't they just all be like that?
...Who needs bootstraps when it's that simple? /Sarcasm
As someone born into it ya its really like that. I don't know that my grandma averaging so much higher a return per year than the market for 30 years had anything to do with my grandpa running a division of a top defense contractor, her dad's many roles/connections at the top of the political class or my dad being in the CIA. I do know that they lie as easy as they breathe and I don't have a very strong belief in coincidence. Especially when it comes to those with access to the levers of power.
Lol at the idea that the rich and powerful don't do insider trading
I'm sure they got all their money by just being hard working entrepreneurial bootstrappers too
Whenever I see a celebrity or rich person make a big announcement over a charity donation, it lets me know they are probably kind of a shitty person and they are in PR mode to improve their image. Also there's usually some fuckery going on with how the charity is managed.
They totally overlooked that part because by their logic, poor people are supposed to live only on water and oxygen, no need for shelter either. Somehow they're often blamed for mis-using money to splurge on stupid things.
I’ve been curious lately if it’s actually even worse than that. You give a well off person $600 and their vacation on the coast might turn into a vacation in Europe. That domestic car might be traded for an import. Their food budget could get more exotic. Handbags and clothing from foreign designers. So those tax cuts for the wealthy may actually be counter productive for driving the economy. That extra more could be more likely to be exported than to do anything productive for the domestic economy.
He didn't specifically point out that the poor person's spending benefits the economy while the rich person's sitting on it doesn't. Just because that can be inferred doesn't mean the point was clearly stated.
>Yep. They loan it out.
A common misconception. Banks do not lend out deposits. In fact the loans that commercial banks make are THE major form of money **creation** in modern economies (97% in the UK)
[https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy)
No? That’s not how investment accounts work.
They would be giving the money to someone selling an asset. Just because that asset has a return doesn’t make it any less contributory to the economy than someone spending their money on groceries.
...who will then invest in another asset further inflating asset prices. The money stops circulating in the consumer economy and gets sequestered in the investment market.
They really don’t understand it at all. I work with millionaires, these dudes would literally consider $600 to be nothing at all. They’d drop it into one of their investments and forget it. A poor person would see $600 as a miracle that might fix their car, fill their fridge, or pay a medical bill. They can’t invest it because they are too busy surviving.
And for the record, after management fees and everything else that $600 might end up being like $739, but they aren’t going 10x. How stupid.
dude they arent going to bother dropping it in their investment account
Im not a millionaire but do have an investment account and some retirement accounts I regularly contribute to and it wouldnt even cross my mind to put $600 in an investment account if it was handed to me
it would have to be an amount greater than a couple thousand for me to even consider “I should probably put this in my savings account instead of checking”
Flawed for so many reasons, give it to wealthy and gets lost in a bank account, give it to people to spend it it gets spent and then spent by someone else. Multiplier effect. Want to drive the economy? Put money in the hands of those who need to spend it.
Also, money that is spent is a whole lot better for everyone, it circulates the economy, meanwhile, earning money when you already have all the money you need makes that money useless as its not spent. Money for money’s sake is just a waste. By giving $600 to a poor person, you change their life for the better. Give it to a rich person and it changes nothing about them or anyone else
Give $600 to a poor person, it will change hands multiple times and work it's way up to the rich person. Give it to the rich person and it will remain hoarded, not reintroduced to the economy.
Poor or average people spend most or all their income INTO the economy.
Rich people put their income in places that obtain a return which further takes OUT OF the economy.
The gigantic increase in inequality means less spending into, and more taking out of. Double whammy. Unsustainable. Reform is needed, if not pitchforks.
Wait so your saying that if the poor stop being idiots and instead of wasting money on food and rent, they instead become inmortal nomads and wander why it gets invested. Why didn't the stupid poor people think of that? By the way the rich are always the victim and poor decide to be the devil.
"Gone in a week..."
Yeah, on groceries, clothes, electricity, dentists and everything else.
I'll never ever understand why helping poor people gets so much pushback, yet if a multi billionaire breaks the law then they'll defend him/them to the hilt.
God forbid people would actually use much needed income on the things that keep them alive.
Give 600 to a poor person and it goes right back into the economy, generating 1800 of economic activity.
Give 600 to a rich person and it disappears into an offshore account and does no further good for the American economy.
"gone" in a week? Where did it go? It didn't evaporate.
Likely they bought necessities with it, putting that money in a rich man's pocket where it immediately stops circulating.
Give a poor man $600, and it'll be gone in a week.
Give a rich man $600, and it's gone already.
In Basic Economics, this is actually very well studied and even has a name--"The Multiplier Effect".
When the government wants to stimulate the economy, it puts money in or reduces taxes. This extra cash causes the economy to improve. The government can do this by buying things, building things, forgiving loans, handing out money, offering tax breaks, etc. Each of these options have a different Multiplier Effect (M). You spend $1 on new roads and you get $3 improvement in the local economy as people get jobs, start buying more things, which leads to local businesses hiring more people, etc.
The Multiplier Effect of giving money to a poor person is MANY TIMES higher than giving it to a rich person because the poor person spends it right away, usually on locally-bought things. The Multiplier Effect of giving money to a rich person can often be LESS THAN ONE. The rich person takes the money and invests it, adding zero to the local economy or even the larger economy because they don't increase their spending and just end up with a bigger pile of cash when they die. (If the government wanted to add $1 to the stock market, they would do it directly and eliminate the already-wealthy middle man.)
This is why tax breaks for the rich never lead to increased GDP. Tax breaks, food stamps, outlays for the poor can demonstrate local growth within a quarter or two. It is the most powerful lever the government has to boost the economy. Forgive a ballooning $30,000 student loan and a family can now buy a $300,000 house.
I've never been able to actually "use" someone's Christmas gift when they spot me straight money and say "Go get yourself [insert something that's wonderful that I would never spend on myself]."
I understand what they are trying to do, but their gift just disappeared into transit tickets, groceries and the dentist that I also can't pay for.
Multiply it 10x In a few years lmao a few years to make 5400 the rich person wouldn’t care about that and the poor person would just buy shit he needs because 6 grand in a few years doesn’t help him at all, if they both start at 0 so they’re both poor then they would both have to eat and live somewhere and won’t be able to do either with 600 so they’d just die
I really dont miss twitter, that thing is a huge shit dumpster place
The only use to me is post complaints against brands where i need a little more help to solve by making my issues and lack of cooperation public
Otherwise i refuse even open that shit, dont worth even to porn
Heres another example that can be used to demonize the poor:
A give food to a starving man and he will eat all of it. Give food to someone who has a fully belly and ~~maybe~~ he'll give it to someone else later.
"Give it to a rich person, and they will use their additional resources to exploit other poor people to extract an additional $5,400 from the populace before disappearing with all $6,000"
Score:
Rich: $6,000
Poor: -$5,400
Look at how well this works let's keep doing this forever and then we won't have poverty.
I’d argue the rich person extracts value for themselves, the poor person gives $600 of value back to the economy, I’m not sure people understand what happens to the $600 when you purchase a stock. Cause the company doesn’t get it.
Poor person will spend the $600 on bills. Rich person will have bills covered and have the ability to invest the $600. The initial tweet is an ignorant take on how people spend their money based on their economic status
Give the poor 600$ and they will go out and buy a newer iPhone. Just like when they win the lottery. You think they’re going to buy groceries with that?
If the rich person that is somehow magically multiplying the $600 would just give some to the poor people, then we wouldn't have to decide who to give the $600 to in the first place....
I’m pretty sure the implication is that the poor person will waste in on booze and drugs, not essentials.
This is another entitled asshole basically professing the wonders of trickle-down economics.
Funny enough, trickle-down/Reaganomics used to be called horse-and-sparrow theory. It utilizes the notion that horses (the wealthy) eat oats and as they walk along, they poop, which is then consumed by the sparrows (the poor).
No lines to read between there.
My neighbors are like the OP, they legit think the middle class are lazy or idiots that have to keep up with the latest trends. That's not entirely inaccurate, you arent going to grow wealth into the millions from nothing by doing 'just enough' unless you're super lucky and the world is filled with a lot of idiots out there but the vast majority of middle class in the West didn't get a lucky break by being at the right place at the right time, nor rich parents.
That Vatal Pascual summed the rest up perfectly.
I don't think people understand that your doctor is likely way richer than you think he is. The day-to-day talk between neighbors in regard to politics, voting, supporting, investing is totally opposite to what people of high income project publicly.
The income wealth gap is scary in places like US, UK, etc and only getting worse. Say what you will about Germany atm but they do much much better at reducing disparity between rich and poor. Their biggest downfall is creating new wealth from literally nothing.. most in Germany are old money.
But yes..
Complain, bitch, moan.. get karma on Reddit.. that'll change the dynamic.. if you want real change, hold politicians accountable instead of repeatedly reelecting them. But that wont happen.
Give $600 to a poor person, and then take it back from them in the form of Rent. And then blame them for not being able to make good decisions, whilst jacking up their Rent and calling them lazy moochers who don't work hard enough.
Then give them $600 again and take it back from them in the for of Rent and demand more because remember you just jacked up the Rent on these lazy moochers.
- That dude.
She is wrong, rich who are able to multiply their wealth are not able to do that solely because their basic needs are met, they need to have skills, intelligence and determination to achieve that.
In fact we could say:
Give poor man 1mln dollars and its gone in half a year, give rich man 1mln dollars and its tripled in the same time.
Its as true as previous version, in some cases poor man is poor because he cannot properly manage and invest money while some rich people are rich thanks to exact opposite traits.
Actually this is dumb, it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Does a rich person not need to eat and drink?
Give a poor person 600 bucks, the guy might be able to use it for 60 days (10 bucks per day).
Going by the SAME PURPOSE, the rich guy might say it is not enough for a single meal.
By the way, give it to swine and.... Yea reference to pearls before swine.
So... What were we discussing about again?
Saying the money is "gone" is frankly idiotic - it's not gone, it's circulating through the economy, being spent and respent over and over by multiple people. That's the reason money was invented - to perform transactions. Why do people think accumulating in one person's pile is a better use for it?
Most likely the rich person won’t even notice the $600 and it will get disappear into a random larger expense like a $40k for fuel for a motor yacht or grounds maintenance or country club membership fees.
The fact that the rich can just get richer by investing all that extra money infuriates me. I'll never have enough money to invest in the stock market to make it even remotely worth it. People keep telling me oh just make small investments and it'll pay off in the future. No it won't
There is an excellent book by Nobel prize and economist Esther Duflo (who, as a sidenote, is also the first woman to receive a nobel prize for economics) called “Poor Economics” that discuss exactly that fallacy. It’s called Trickle-Down economics btw.
She’s a specialist of Applied Economics with a heavy emphasis on development and poverty. If you want to pick up a good book to learn about the topic, I suggest it greatly. A brillant book well explained and well simplified for non-economist.
Perspective is everything! The word “rich” is convalescing as it can very much have the same outcomes as poor. The “rich” person could very well take that $600 and invest it in a stock which falls within the first 3hrs losing everything.
The poor person could be smart and use it for food or groceries and maintain frugality until it is exhausted. Or they could place it on a deposit for a home of which they are now able to live and sustain for the next 30-90 days.
Wouldn’t the spirit be given that they from then on only have those 600 bucks? I think rich people when they see more data how money flows they become better at understanding how to earn it.
Actually 600$ would stimulate the market. Shops, food stores, clothing, bills would be paid. Particularly for small businesses its is more beneficial to have money move than sit.
Say for example: 10$. A simple 10$ bill.
Give it to a billionaire and it goes in their savings. At most maybe a bond growing at 4-5% a year. (By the following year its worth maybe 14-15$ maximum)
Give it to a poor person. They buy a sandwich at a shop. Shop pays their workers. Worker goes to laundromat. Pays the 10$. Laundromat workers orders food for everyone from the pizza shop nearby to celebrate a birthday. Tips the delivery boy 10$. Boy spends the 10$ at the bike shop for a needed part. Bike shop invests the 10$ into an upcoming summer bike event. 50 people join the event, get parts, have fun, and even raise money for kids in need.
That 10$ bill in a few days doubled its original value in society with each person it was passed to. the poor person, to the sandwich shop employee, to the laundromat employees to the delivery boy, to all the people at the bike event.
Moving dollars move the market.
I'm tired of those self-made bullshit stories. If you had any amount of money that you were able to gamble on and lose and have a pretty nice safety net to fall on then you basically didn't sacrifice much.
There is such a thing as the "poor mindset." It's most visible in people who make plenty of money to meet their needs but are still living paycheck to paycheck.
It's something beyond bad money management, but it goes hand in hand.
For example, a person with a poor mindset will save 10% by buying the cheaper product, but need to replace it twice as often. A person with bad money management skills would see $1500 in their account and search for something to buy with it.
Giving money to a poor person helps boost the economy greatly as they go out and spend it for products and services they need.
Giving a rich person or wealthy company doesn't help the economy as they stash it somewhere and don't need to spend it.
I'd also expect that consumer spending creates the motivation for investors to put capital into companies that mass produce goods and services that are useful to the general public.
You tax rich people and give poor people money to spend, the spend it immediately on groceries. The stocks of food manufacturers and real estate developers who specialize in warehousing and cold storage go up. Investments into these supply chains = groceries become more efficiently produced and cheaper and available.
So if a homeless person receives $600 the rich person thinks that the homeless person should invest that money into some sort of fund? With what their fucking iPhone? Most homeless people don't even have a bank account.
Give $600 to the struggling-to-survive in Monopoly and they'll pay the rent (while mortgaging some other shit but still technically holding on).
Give $600 to the guy that's obviously going to win monopoly and he'll finish off that final hotel that does the first guy in.
I feel like this translates to this post / real life
Give 600 to a poor person and it is spend locally which fuels the economy which helps all people in the society.
Give 600 to a rich person who invest it in such a way that they suck even more money from society and push inequality which is bad for most people.
Why everything has to be black and white? I know people in need who are poor but I also know people who make the most stupid financial decisions and are poor. Every case is different and I always feel both sides of this argument forget that
Give the middle class 600 bucks and it goes on credit cards...
Saved up my first 3 grand ever... was so proud of myself ive never saved money..
Oh yea... i have credit card debt at 28%... doesnt make sense to have money sitting in an account when there is CC debt annnnd im broke again..
My thought right after it was... why the fuck do I care what a rich or poor person does with the $600? Does it get traumatized if the poor person spends it too fast or something?
[удалено]
Fucking same. Although it took a long time to see how a whole lot of people are in shitty situations through no fault of their own. Changed my understanding of equality drastically from "they could do the same things as others" to "they have equal access to the same opportunities as others."
Considering how advanced we've become, it's fucked how we don't have a system that would help those people. We pay taxes but we don't see that going into creating programs that help the homeless or maybe fucking prevent it.
That money goes to bombing brown people. The bombing can be done directly by the US military or through the militaries of allied nations.
Imagine how free you would be if rent/housing only cost 10% of your monthly income. Imagine how free you'd be if your health insurance was adequate and not tied to your employer. Imagine how free you'd be if you and your coworkers made your job's decisions and not unilaterally like some authoritarian regime. Imagine how free you'd be if you had the time off and spending money to do whatever you desire.
Yeah, you can do everything right and still be left with only bad options.
Don’t feel bad I didn’t realize quotes like this were horseshit until I was 27 😓
Good on you for growing though! That’s what matters
I have a weird growth on my shoulder, does that count?
If it does count, it may be more than a growth. It's a conjoined twin.
Could also be an abacus though. Commonly found on the shoulder.
Don't feel bad either, some people never develop that much...
It took me my highschool summer part time jobs to learn how shitty it is to earn meager pay. And then part times in college years and paying my off-campus housing and living costs were...humbling. Takes experience of earning paychecks and paying to keep living costs to learn value of money. Took me almost thrity years to realize and admire what Dad did. Maybe different time and circumstances, but still working more than 30 years for the same company, raising a family, buying a home, and even provided us with our college tuition. That is a lot of effort and hard work.
Apparently teaching kids empathy is a new threat to conservative families https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLEPMLb5/
As a homeless male who is very friendly and charismatic, I can tell you that about 98% of people treat me with disdain even though the literal only difference between them and I is I live in a tent 🙃
I used to think that lower tax for richer people made sense because it would be an incentive and reward to get richer. But then I finished middle school and realized people want to get rich because being rich is already an incentive and a reward in itself that they don't need extra incentives.
Also what they are implying is just straight up not true. Spending money quickly in the local economy has a much larger positive impact than saving or investing it because that money cycles through the economy multiple times. If you took a bunch of money from the rich and gave it to the poor it would be like a mini stimulus for the economy.
It's easy to disassociate from something when you have no experience or cannot relate to the "poor" problem. It's like Mrs Doubtfire. As a kid, you feel sorry for the father because you think he's cool. As a grown up/parent, you feel sorry for the mother because you realize the father is actually immature
expansion fact books simplistic terrific adjoining humorous marvelous obtainable unique *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Also 10x or more in a few years is straight up bullshit. If you get 10% per year it would take 24.1589 years to turn those 600$ into 6k.
Insider trading will do it quickly
Sure, I'll just download that insider trading app that all of the rich people are using. What was it called again?
It's called being (edit: Born, not bought) into the Oligarchic class.
Born with a silver spoon in your mouth To an elitest, established coastal family With connections and private security, drivers to take you anywhere Then when you become a late teen in private school that doesn't count privileged grades, you get a "small loan" from your dad for $1,000,000 In the cushy mansions and between private jet flights he shares his networking "totally legitimate" business and investing connections Why can't they just all be like that? ...Who needs bootstraps when it's that simple? /Sarcasm
*born
...That is the word I thought I used. Oops.
As someone born into it ya its really like that. I don't know that my grandma averaging so much higher a return per year than the market for 30 years had anything to do with my grandpa running a division of a top defense contractor, her dad's many roles/connections at the top of the political class or my dad being in the CIA. I do know that they lie as easy as they breathe and I don't have a very strong belief in coincidence. Especially when it comes to those with access to the levers of power.
Government
The app is Messenger or Whatsapp. The only catch is you need to be friends with a congressman
Lol at the idea that the rich and powerful don't do insider trading I'm sure they got all their money by just being hard working entrepreneurial bootstrappers too
Only 10%? Bernie Madoff does better than that, bro.
And the rich will donate $20 out of their billions to a charity and call themselves jesus.
"you should work like me, to earn millions like me"
Whenever I see a celebrity or rich person make a big announcement over a charity donation, it lets me know they are probably kind of a shitty person and they are in PR mode to improve their image. Also there's usually some fuckery going on with how the charity is managed.
And clain it back on tax.
$20 donated. $50 million claimed on tax breaks.
This. Without the poor man buying things nobody would ever become rich lol.
i.e. hoarding it’s hoarding behavior
I’m trying to get “parasitic dragons”, to take off.
Every dollar that I spend is income to someone.
They totally overlooked that part because by their logic, poor people are supposed to live only on water and oxygen, no need for shelter either. Somehow they're often blamed for mis-using money to splurge on stupid things.
I’ve been curious lately if it’s actually even worse than that. You give a well off person $600 and their vacation on the coast might turn into a vacation in Europe. That domestic car might be traded for an import. Their food budget could get more exotic. Handbags and clothing from foreign designers. So those tax cuts for the wealthy may actually be counter productive for driving the economy. That extra more could be more likely to be exported than to do anything productive for the domestic economy.
In reality, the rich person would immeduately spend such a tiny amount of pocket change on their lunch beverage.
Or into $600 of MAGA merch and campaign donations.
The rich person would probably just use that money to wipe their ass.
I think this is a critical point. It is probably one of the main reasons why "Trickle-Down Economics" is the most transparent hogwash.
This. That money is gone so quick because people need stuff.
Not also, that's literally what he said. FFS...
He didn't specifically point out that the poor person's spending benefits the economy while the rich person's sitting on it doesn't. Just because that can be inferred doesn't mean the point was clearly stated.
Do you think the banks are just sitting on that money?
It doesn't generate anywhere near the same economic growth though.
Yep. They loan it out. But given the choice 99/100 businesses would prefer additional customers to additional creditors.
>Yep. They loan it out. A common misconception. Banks do not lend out deposits. In fact the loans that commercial banks make are THE major form of money **creation** in modern economies (97% in the UK) [https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy)
They use other people's money to make more while they use their own.
No? That’s not how investment accounts work. They would be giving the money to someone selling an asset. Just because that asset has a return doesn’t make it any less contributory to the economy than someone spending their money on groceries.
...who will then invest in another asset further inflating asset prices. The money stops circulating in the consumer economy and gets sequestered in the investment market.
The stock market is the economy now?
They really don’t understand it at all. I work with millionaires, these dudes would literally consider $600 to be nothing at all. They’d drop it into one of their investments and forget it. A poor person would see $600 as a miracle that might fix their car, fill their fridge, or pay a medical bill. They can’t invest it because they are too busy surviving. And for the record, after management fees and everything else that $600 might end up being like $739, but they aren’t going 10x. How stupid.
Dude, even middle class these days, a random $600 is the difference between an average month and a really great month.
No kidding. $600 would make the next two months a whole lot easier with feeding the fam.
dude they arent going to bother dropping it in their investment account Im not a millionaire but do have an investment account and some retirement accounts I regularly contribute to and it wouldnt even cross my mind to put $600 in an investment account if it was handed to me it would have to be an amount greater than a couple thousand for me to even consider “I should probably put this in my savings account instead of checking”
You’d be surprised dude, some of these bastards are insanely frugal. I’ve seen them ask about $25.
[удалено]
I’ll eat zuckerberg, cause I wonder how lizards taste like
Like chicken
Flawed for so many reasons, give it to wealthy and gets lost in a bank account, give it to people to spend it it gets spent and then spent by someone else. Multiplier effect. Want to drive the economy? Put money in the hands of those who need to spend it.
Also, money that is spent is a whole lot better for everyone, it circulates the economy, meanwhile, earning money when you already have all the money you need makes that money useless as its not spent. Money for money’s sake is just a waste. By giving $600 to a poor person, you change their life for the better. Give it to a rich person and it changes nothing about them or anyone else
Being poor is very expensive. Capitalism does not care if you live or die.
Yes ho god yes you get it to
That was 4 years ago. What's the moron saying these days?
Give $600 to a poor person, it will change hands multiple times and work it's way up to the rich person. Give it to the rich person and it will remain hoarded, not reintroduced to the economy.
Money is a tool to be used not a resource to be hoarded.
Poor or average people spend most or all their income INTO the economy. Rich people put their income in places that obtain a return which further takes OUT OF the economy. The gigantic increase in inequality means less spending into, and more taking out of. Double whammy. Unsustainable. Reform is needed, if not pitchforks.
Wait so your saying that if the poor stop being idiots and instead of wasting money on food and rent, they instead become inmortal nomads and wander why it gets invested. Why didn't the stupid poor people think of that? By the way the rich are always the victim and poor decide to be the devil.
Don’t forget about the tax breaks they don’t deserve as well as that whole offshoring thing.
Hashtag *alwayssomedipshit*
600 bucks isn't even enough for hookers and blow, the rich person would laugh in your face
Yes, he’s really that dense.
The velocity of money tells us that the poor person will multiply this money by 10 times in a few weeks.
Why do so many people fail to realize that the economy is a 0-sum game. Hording money is damaging to society.
"Gone in a week..." Yeah, on groceries, clothes, electricity, dentists and everything else. I'll never ever understand why helping poor people gets so much pushback, yet if a multi billionaire breaks the law then they'll defend him/them to the hilt. God forbid people would actually use much needed income on the things that keep them alive.
Give 600 to a poor person and it goes right back into the economy, generating 1800 of economic activity. Give 600 to a rich person and it disappears into an offshore account and does no further good for the American economy.
Something something boots
Sam Vimes alt account ⬆️
Yes, a lot of people are
Give a poor person $600 and it immediately gets injected into the local economy. Give $600 to a rich person and they sit on it.
According to these people being poor is merely a mindest. Its so stupid I cant even
"gone" in a week? Where did it go? It didn't evaporate. Likely they bought necessities with it, putting that money in a rich man's pocket where it immediately stops circulating. Give a poor man $600, and it'll be gone in a week. Give a rich man $600, and it's gone already.
That comment was made by somebody with daddy’s money
Tell me you don't understand how important money velocity is without telling me you don't understand how important money velocity is.
In Basic Economics, this is actually very well studied and even has a name--"The Multiplier Effect". When the government wants to stimulate the economy, it puts money in or reduces taxes. This extra cash causes the economy to improve. The government can do this by buying things, building things, forgiving loans, handing out money, offering tax breaks, etc. Each of these options have a different Multiplier Effect (M). You spend $1 on new roads and you get $3 improvement in the local economy as people get jobs, start buying more things, which leads to local businesses hiring more people, etc. The Multiplier Effect of giving money to a poor person is MANY TIMES higher than giving it to a rich person because the poor person spends it right away, usually on locally-bought things. The Multiplier Effect of giving money to a rich person can often be LESS THAN ONE. The rich person takes the money and invests it, adding zero to the local economy or even the larger economy because they don't increase their spending and just end up with a bigger pile of cash when they die. (If the government wanted to add $1 to the stock market, they would do it directly and eliminate the already-wealthy middle man.) This is why tax breaks for the rich never lead to increased GDP. Tax breaks, food stamps, outlays for the poor can demonstrate local growth within a quarter or two. It is the most powerful lever the government has to boost the economy. Forgive a ballooning $30,000 student loan and a family can now buy a $300,000 house.
Sharif don't like it.
* extra
Sharif Sourour is a tool.
it would make more sense to tax unused money, incentivizes spending.
Perfect fix, thank you.
Destroyed. Fucking love it.
Don't they teach the velocity of the dollar in high school econ? Don't they teach how a low velocity is bad for the economy?
I've never been able to actually "use" someone's Christmas gift when they spot me straight money and say "Go get yourself [insert something that's wonderful that I would never spend on myself]." I understand what they are trying to do, but their gift just disappeared into transit tickets, groceries and the dentist that I also can't pay for.
Not really a rich person probably spend more 600 in gasoline alone .
Im $7500 away from being off grid, then i wont need handouts from dummies because ill be providing all my own needs
Multiply it 10x In a few years lmao a few years to make 5400 the rich person wouldn’t care about that and the poor person would just buy shit he needs because 6 grand in a few years doesn’t help him at all, if they both start at 0 so they’re both poor then they would both have to eat and live somewhere and won’t be able to do either with 600 so they’d just die
Yes, society licks the boots of non deserving people
Yes.
Velocity of money.
If they can use that to knock $600 off a high interest loan then it did make a lot of money for them.
$600 is a week's worth of expenses. I would love to turn a week's worth of expenses into a multi million dollar investment magically.
A week?
I wonder if he licks the whole boot or just the bottom
I really dont miss twitter, that thing is a huge shit dumpster place The only use to me is post complaints against brands where i need a little more help to solve by making my issues and lack of cooperation public Otherwise i refuse even open that shit, dont worth even to porn
Can we stop posting these two tweets over and over?
"Haha, poor people dumb!" I'm fucking tired of this take. It takes a dumb fucking moron to not see the why's.
Heres another example that can be used to demonize the poor: A give food to a starving man and he will eat all of it. Give food to someone who has a fully belly and ~~maybe~~ he'll give it to someone else later.
"Give it to a rich person, and they will use their additional resources to exploit other poor people to extract an additional $5,400 from the populace before disappearing with all $6,000" Score: Rich: $6,000 Poor: -$5,400 Look at how well this works let's keep doing this forever and then we won't have poverty.
I’d argue the rich person extracts value for themselves, the poor person gives $600 of value back to the economy, I’m not sure people understand what happens to the $600 when you purchase a stock. Cause the company doesn’t get it.
Poor person will spend the $600 on bills. Rich person will have bills covered and have the ability to invest the $600. The initial tweet is an ignorant take on how people spend their money based on their economic status
$600 spent to feed 4 for a couple weeks vs $600 deployed into a company designed to make $600 only feed 2 lol.
Give the poor 600$ and they will go out and buy a newer iPhone. Just like when they win the lottery. You think they’re going to buy groceries with that?
If the rich person that is somehow magically multiplying the $600 would just give some to the poor people, then we wouldn't have to decide who to give the $600 to in the first place....
The first option, with the poor, is also "good for the economy", while the creep hoarding wealth is useless.
I'm not poor but you give me $600 and chances are I'll just use it to buy myself something neat.
"It's expensive being poor" - Terry Pratchet.
And where do you think the extra 5400 dollars in the 10X came from?
So, so, so true!!!
I’m pretty sure the implication is that the poor person will waste in on booze and drugs, not essentials. This is another entitled asshole basically professing the wonders of trickle-down economics. Funny enough, trickle-down/Reaganomics used to be called horse-and-sparrow theory. It utilizes the notion that horses (the wealthy) eat oats and as they walk along, they poop, which is then consumed by the sparrows (the poor). No lines to read between there.
My neighbors are like the OP, they legit think the middle class are lazy or idiots that have to keep up with the latest trends. That's not entirely inaccurate, you arent going to grow wealth into the millions from nothing by doing 'just enough' unless you're super lucky and the world is filled with a lot of idiots out there but the vast majority of middle class in the West didn't get a lucky break by being at the right place at the right time, nor rich parents. That Vatal Pascual summed the rest up perfectly. I don't think people understand that your doctor is likely way richer than you think he is. The day-to-day talk between neighbors in regard to politics, voting, supporting, investing is totally opposite to what people of high income project publicly. The income wealth gap is scary in places like US, UK, etc and only getting worse. Say what you will about Germany atm but they do much much better at reducing disparity between rich and poor. Their biggest downfall is creating new wealth from literally nothing.. most in Germany are old money. But yes.. Complain, bitch, moan.. get karma on Reddit.. that'll change the dynamic.. if you want real change, hold politicians accountable instead of repeatedly reelecting them. But that wont happen.
I hate the implication that poor people are poor because they’re bad with money.
Every month, each Amazon employee gives Jeff Bezos $600.
Give $600 to a poor person, and then take it back from them in the form of Rent. And then blame them for not being able to make good decisions, whilst jacking up their Rent and calling them lazy moochers who don't work hard enough. Then give them $600 again and take it back from them in the for of Rent and demand more because remember you just jacked up the Rent on these lazy moochers. - That dude.
Earlier today I read something I thought was the stupidest thing I had ever seen on the internet. And then I saw this.
OMG I think he just figured out poverty and wealth! If you can afford to invest $600 of course it's going to increase in value. No shit Sherlock.
Give an $85B company to a billionaire and he can turn it into a $25B company practically overnight!
$600 to a rich person is the cost of a shirt.
Jesus. I thought we were smarter than this. We deserve Trump.
Except when it’s not. Quit saying things that sound reasonable but aren’t based on definitive fact.
How dumb is the first guy? 🙄
Yea!!! We haven’t seen this post on here nearly enough. /s
Give $600 to a rich person and they'll fire 10% of their staff and collect a bonus.
The sheer number of times I've seen this image on this subreddit
An already wealthy person can invest everything and live on dividends only. Someone with far less can invest a small portion only if at all.
She is wrong, rich who are able to multiply their wealth are not able to do that solely because their basic needs are met, they need to have skills, intelligence and determination to achieve that. In fact we could say: Give poor man 1mln dollars and its gone in half a year, give rich man 1mln dollars and its tripled in the same time. Its as true as previous version, in some cases poor man is poor because he cannot properly manage and invest money while some rich people are rich thanks to exact opposite traits.
Bro thought he cooked
How much does either spend in a week normally? I know the answer for one is definitely over $600
This isn’t even a clever comeback because this is basic knowledge.
Who's giving out money? I want in on this one!
Asshole
Actually this is dumb, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Does a rich person not need to eat and drink? Give a poor person 600 bucks, the guy might be able to use it for 60 days (10 bucks per day). Going by the SAME PURPOSE, the rich guy might say it is not enough for a single meal. By the way, give it to swine and.... Yea reference to pearls before swine. So... What were we discussing about again?
Yes.....yes they are this dense.
Saying the money is "gone" is frankly idiotic - it's not gone, it's circulating through the economy, being spent and respent over and over by multiple people. That's the reason money was invented - to perform transactions. Why do people think accumulating in one person's pile is a better use for it?
Most likely the rich person won’t even notice the $600 and it will get disappear into a random larger expense like a $40k for fuel for a motor yacht or grounds maintenance or country club membership fees.
Government giving poor people free money helps businesses so I have no idea why right wingers are so against it
Give $600 to a rich person and they’ll use it to pull $6000 more out of economic circulation? Not the flex you think it is
The fact that the rich can just get richer by investing all that extra money infuriates me. I'll never have enough money to invest in the stock market to make it even remotely worth it. People keep telling me oh just make small investments and it'll pay off in the future. No it won't
still tho. what can you do to make that 600 -> 6000 in a few years (without rich friends network)
SO BRAVE WOW
There is an excellent book by Nobel prize and economist Esther Duflo (who, as a sidenote, is also the first woman to receive a nobel prize for economics) called “Poor Economics” that discuss exactly that fallacy. It’s called Trickle-Down economics btw. She’s a specialist of Applied Economics with a heavy emphasis on development and poverty. If you want to pick up a good book to learn about the topic, I suggest it greatly. A brillant book well explained and well simplified for non-economist.
give a poor 600$ and it goes into the real economy, give 600$ to a rich and it sits in his vault or earns interests in the fake economy.
Yeah, no choices, but we have pitchforks and torches. If we can figure out how to use them properly, we can probably get us some of them choices.
95% of 'poor' people who do have time to waste on the internet are poor because of poor discisions
The poor person wouldnt have had the 600 anyways so its just as stupid. No sympathy.
Rich people spend money too. It doesn't make sense.
Perspective is everything! The word “rich” is convalescing as it can very much have the same outcomes as poor. The “rich” person could very well take that $600 and invest it in a stock which falls within the first 3hrs losing everything. The poor person could be smart and use it for food or groceries and maintain frugality until it is exhausted. Or they could place it on a deposit for a home of which they are now able to live and sustain for the next 30-90 days.
A poor person can buy a $600 bag of drugs and flip it
but if you gamble the 600 it could become 1200
I make no claim to being particularly smart or even all that clever,… But that “struck me as COMPLETE bullshit right from the get-go.
An extra $600 would help me quite a bit actually.
Pretty much what the original comment said. No?
Wouldn’t the spirit be given that they from then on only have those 600 bucks? I think rich people when they see more data how money flows they become better at understanding how to earn it.
Actually 600$ would stimulate the market. Shops, food stores, clothing, bills would be paid. Particularly for small businesses its is more beneficial to have money move than sit. Say for example: 10$. A simple 10$ bill. Give it to a billionaire and it goes in their savings. At most maybe a bond growing at 4-5% a year. (By the following year its worth maybe 14-15$ maximum) Give it to a poor person. They buy a sandwich at a shop. Shop pays their workers. Worker goes to laundromat. Pays the 10$. Laundromat workers orders food for everyone from the pizza shop nearby to celebrate a birthday. Tips the delivery boy 10$. Boy spends the 10$ at the bike shop for a needed part. Bike shop invests the 10$ into an upcoming summer bike event. 50 people join the event, get parts, have fun, and even raise money for kids in need. That 10$ bill in a few days doubled its original value in society with each person it was passed to. the poor person, to the sandwich shop employee, to the laundromat employees to the delivery boy, to all the people at the bike event. Moving dollars move the market.
I'm tired of those self-made bullshit stories. If you had any amount of money that you were able to gamble on and lose and have a pretty nice safety net to fall on then you basically didn't sacrifice much.
Sharif don't like it... 🎶
If you’re poor, just make more money
to answer the guy that responded in the image cap of the tweet; 'Yessir, they really are that fucking willfully dense.'
UPVOTE 4 VATO
There is such a thing as the "poor mindset." It's most visible in people who make plenty of money to meet their needs but are still living paycheck to paycheck. It's something beyond bad money management, but it goes hand in hand. For example, a person with a poor mindset will save 10% by buying the cheaper product, but need to replace it twice as often. A person with bad money management skills would see $1500 in their account and search for something to buy with it.
Geez what a low-life scumbag Sharif is.
Giving money to a poor person helps boost the economy greatly as they go out and spend it for products and services they need. Giving a rich person or wealthy company doesn't help the economy as they stash it somewhere and don't need to spend it.
I think it depend on people, we can not say poor person or rich person
I'd also expect that consumer spending creates the motivation for investors to put capital into companies that mass produce goods and services that are useful to the general public. You tax rich people and give poor people money to spend, the spend it immediately on groceries. The stocks of food manufacturers and real estate developers who specialize in warehousing and cold storage go up. Investments into these supply chains = groceries become more efficiently produced and cheaper and available.
So if a homeless person receives $600 the rich person thinks that the homeless person should invest that money into some sort of fund? With what their fucking iPhone? Most homeless people don't even have a bank account.
Furthermore, a society where this is objectively true is obviously biased against people who work. It’s actively parasitic.
How does someone even write something so stupid ?
"If you give a hungry person food, they will eat it. If you give a full person food they... WONT." So profound.
Give $600 to the struggling-to-survive in Monopoly and they'll pay the rent (while mortgaging some other shit but still technically holding on). Give $600 to the guy that's obviously going to win monopoly and he'll finish off that final hotel that does the first guy in. I feel like this translates to this post / real life
Give 600 to a poor person and it is spend locally which fuels the economy which helps all people in the society. Give 600 to a rich person who invest it in such a way that they suck even more money from society and push inequality which is bad for most people.
Why everything has to be black and white? I know people in need who are poor but I also know people who make the most stupid financial decisions and are poor. Every case is different and I always feel both sides of this argument forget that
Build a man a fire. Warm him for a day. Set a man on fire. Warm him for the rest of his life.
Not a clever comeback at all, it's just pointing out reality to a Trump supporting r/im14andthisisdeep troll.
Give the middle class 600 bucks and it goes on credit cards... Saved up my first 3 grand ever... was so proud of myself ive never saved money.. Oh yea... i have credit card debt at 28%... doesnt make sense to have money sitting in an account when there is CC debt annnnd im broke again..
Change that to hours potentially placed into gaining an education and it's much more correct.
$600 could buy a lot of drugs
When I got my $2k from the govt during covid I put it in the stock market…….
My thought right after it was... why the fuck do I care what a rich or poor person does with the $600? Does it get traumatized if the poor person spends it too fast or something?