How would Veeky Forums eliminate poverty once and for all?

How would Veeky Forums eliminate poverty once and for all?

>hard mode: no higher taxes above 20% or seizing of rich people's assets allowed

Sterilization and eugenics.

...

Are you allowed to start taxing more stuff that isn't taxed, as long as it's bellow 20%?

We talking relative or absolute here

UBI?

reduce the number of people being born.

less people = less competition for resources
less people = more for everyone

>Government claims eminent domain on all residential domiciles,supermakets and departments.
>Disperse food clothing and shelter.
Improve transportation infrastructure.

>Failing that, invent some way to store energy for a long time.
>Start building kinetic energy plants, people individually operate machines to generate power.


>Set up urban foraging programs where people plant "wild" edible plants within a city.
>Stock cities with more squab, and small game.
>Use government to teach basic survival skills to all its citizens free of charge.

>they think poverty has anything to do with poor people being too deficient or numerous
>laughing_commies.jpg

You can't. People is different by default, that's how genetics works.
There will always be rich people, and consecuentally, poor people

>no seizing assets
>eminent domain

poverty can't be eliminated as it is always not an absolute measurement.

adequate and scientific mental healthcare, you would save money in the long run so you'd barely reach the 20% mark

Alternatively just promote a one child policy. Same results without the riots or the human rights violations. Maybe even allow people to transfer their child allowance to others.

If you truly want to eliminate poverty, your hard mode is impossible. That some (even many) people are poor is capitalism's necessary condition. You don't even have to be a commie to realize this. The only reason the lowest paid workers of the world are not paid lower is because of minimum wage laws. And if ever that minimum wage becomes too expensive to justify the work being done, the job either gets eliminated or mechanized.

You could implement a universal basic income to the tune of $40,000 or so, and that would be a simple way of eliminating poverty. Nobody with the least bit of financial sense would ever want for food or housing. No kids would starve or go homeless. But as unemployment due to mechanization outpaces education, simply increasing minimum wages to livable standards will not work. Entire fields are getting eliminated at once due to technology, e.g. professional drivers, whether they be taxi, truck, limousine, or parking attendant. Not all of these people will be reintegrated into society as something else. Eventually there will be so few jobs that can be done without higher education that every technological breakthrough will mean tens of thousands of people going back to school to get another degree in something.

The reason why hard mode is impossible is that, in this inevitable situation, the only jobs that will not be eliminated eventually is that of "property owner." No machine could take that job. And the few property owners that remain after the ceaseless mergers and acquisitions will have all the world's wealth, quite literally. These people will either need to have their assets seized or be taxed at a rate of nearly 100% to provide for everyone else's continued existence.

Impossible

The cause of modern poverty is your hard-mode, wealth inequality. Money doesn't exist in a vacuum, a single person can only accumulate wealth on a large scale at the expense of others. That's not always inherently bad, bosses make more money then works, that's not unusual, but when wealth equality gets extreme enough that the wealthy can influence policy and have enough leverage to keep wages deliberately low, it always ends in the majority being dependent on the rich to give them a means to survive, since they control most means of producing and handing out wealth.

Normally the check to this would be things like labor unions, which have a somewhat terrible reputation in the united states. That's not by accident, corporations are the main advocates for the idea that unions are corrupt. And sure, ill wager they've done questionable things, but a wage dependent worker has no other leverage then his work, without unions your pretty much at the mercy of whoever is paying your wages.

People have ran numbers and agree that a guaranteed income is possible and from what little we've studied of it, extremely beneficial. But, a guaranteed income would benefit the majority and hurt the wealthy, so we wont be seeing that anytime soon unless there's an extreme outcry. I don't mean to get political but there's literally only like one guy in politics/Washington in the united states that even talks about wealth inequality as a problem, its not going to addressed any time soon it looks like.

Also, when i say wealthy i actually mean the ultra-wealthy, oxfam had an alarming statistic that the 8 richest people in the world own half of the worlds wealth.

Like a 20% tax on coal?

The black death proves that a giant fall in population increases wages.

Anarcho-capitalism.

Vlad the Impaler method.
>invite them to dining hall for feast
>burn said dining hall

>those blurry faces
CURSE YOU DAGUERROTYYYYYPPPPEEEE!!!

Yes, it fucking does, are you dense? Every periodo of big economico growth follows either a huge loss in lives (wars, plagues) or new discoveries (land, technologies)

Continue exactly as we are

Living standards in the USSR went up only after dozens of millions of people died in the Holodomor and the WW2. You have a finite amount of resources in any given country and too many people will ALWAYS result in poverty.

Make poor people buy more money.