Problem is, those who's own wealth/power depends on a large population in "poverty" will just redefine "poor" up - as they've done many times already. The value

Problem is, those who's own wealth/power depends on a large population in "poverty" will just redefine "poor" up - as they've done many times already. The value of money would reduce because recipients thereof trade nothing for it, thus raising the cost of goods accordingly, pushing some things back out of reach of the "poor". We already give an enormous amount to the "poor". If you make less than a given amount, various welfare programs will fill the gap (some pushing you WAY above the line). It's enough that another problem is arising: many on welfare receive so much that they can't afford to work, lest they lose all those benefits and reap less net income as a consequence. Again, I come back to the issue of defining the word "poor". As is, it's not objective relative to the recipient's survival.