Sure. A lot of that money doesn't even make it to intended recipients because of corporate welfare and inefficiencies in government.
replyIn addition, there should probably be changes to laws/regulations to address companies that exploit the poorest.
And, many people who are poor have persistent mental/physical disabilities, so part of that spending is because many of these people have it the hardest.
With that said, we could likely fix all of these things and significantly unequal wealth distribution would still result in a lot of poverty.
I think it's hitting 96k per homeless person a year now. But yes, it's the tax system's fault.
reply96k$?! Those are rookie numbers. I propose a mclaren for every homeless person. We will weath tax all stocks in the fortune 500 to pay for it, crash the stocks and solve inequality.
replyIf money isn't solving the problem, you're just not using enough.
replyYou can't solve a shortage with demand subsidies. You need to expand supply. SF has too little housing relative to its population, and has perennially tried throwing money at the nonprofit industrial complex which has (obviously) perennially failed to solve the problem because it doesn't generate new housing units, it just bids up and reshuffles the existing ones (and steals a lot of money in the process).
replyOK, use money to expand supply. Using more money can make more supply.
replyTechnically, cratering every fortune 500 does solve inequality so at it's purest their argument is right.
replyI think it's more socialist/communist motivation to seize production I don't think they care about the rich as much as control.