notthegrouch:

lierdumoa:

beaniebaneenie:

dysfucktional-queer:

mysharona1987:

Also even like. Economically. It’s better to give money to poor people. That’s basic Keynesian economics.

Give $600 to someone with no money and they will put it back into the economy, buying groceries, clothes, accommodations, maybe some small luxuries. Give $600 to a rich person and it goes into their bank accounts and just stays there being useless.

If you give a poor person $20, that same $20 will be spent easily 10x over, by 10 different people, in 10 different businesses- within a week.

1- poor guy buys groceries at a local bodega.

2- the bodega owner pays his employees from the cash in the register.

3- bodega employee goes to Starbucks and tips the barista in cash.

4- the barista owes their roommate from lunch last week and pays them back

5- roommate buys something from an indie creator on Etsy

6- Etsy creator splurges on takeout & tips in cash

7- the takeout delivery driver fills up on gas

8- gas station manager (who got paid from the register) takes their kid to the ice cream truck

9- Ice cream truck driver buys a new tire and gets an oil change

10- mechanic gets lunch on a shift

….and so on.

Giving money to poor people is the single best way to stimulate and energize the economy… because poor people do something with money that rich people don’t- THEY FUCKING SPEND IT.

Giving $600 to a poor person is like composting food scraps. It returns nutrients to the economic ecosystem and supports the livelihood of others.

Giving $600 to a rich person is like tossing plastic into the ocean. It’s added to a massive floating garbage patch of corporate wealth. It disrupts the balance of the economic ecosystem, leading to consequences like economic ecosystem collapse.

In a healthy economy, money continues to flow. Rich people are bloodclots.