We can totally eradicate poverty if we TRULY want to.

[davis196]

Poverty will end only ,if all laziness,procrastination,ignorance and daydreaming ends.
Some people just want to work more and earn more.The distribution of wealth will take resources from them and give money to the lazy,ignorant people.Is this fair?
The people,who are extremely rich,due to breaking the law should be punished.This is the only justice I know.

[Ranly123]

So many people are interested in amassing wealth without giving a dime to the less privilege around them, yet they will still be among the first to criticize the government in its failure to eradicate hunger and poverty in the country. You should also know that the duty of eradicating poverty must not be left to the government alone. You must also contribute your quota.
 
If you are lucky to be wealthy, you should see it as a social responsibility to help the less privileged people in the society. If I may ask, do you feel comfortable driving past several beggars on the street when you have billions of money in your account that you or your entire family may not be able to exhaust in the next 100 years?
 
Think about this seriously. With the so much money in the world, poverty can greatly be reduced if not totally eradicated.
 
All that is necessary is the distribution of this wealth.

There is enough to go round.    

So, how are we going to gather so much money that you think we can't spend in the next 100 years? Yes, it's easy to say that we can eradicate poverty with so much money in the world. But at least share some ideas on how to realize that.

[eternalgloom]

Giving money to the poor can only help in a short amount of time it doesn't improve their lives in the long run because you don't know what are they going to do with the money. This is the risk when helping people so others turn to charities but helping charities has its own risk too because you can't track everything and what they're going to do with the money (lack of transaprency).

Other poor people rely heavily on the government for their needs instead of relying on their own. They've accepted their fate living in a poor lifestyle and doesn't want to change for the better. With that being said we can't eliminate poverty, reducing it is one way to maintain/improve the problem from getting worse.

That's simply not true, there have been experiments that have shown quite the opposite.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty/2013/12/29/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html?utm_term=.be4929fcefc1

In May 2009, a small experiment involving 13 homeless men took off in London. Some of them had slept in the cold for more than 40 years. The presence of these street veterans was far from cheap. Police, legal services, health care: Each cost taxpayers thousands of pounds every year.

That spring, a local charity decided to make the street veterans — sometimes called rough sleepers — the beneficiaries of an innovative social experiment. No more food stamps, food-kitchen dinners or sporadic shelter stays. The 13 would get a drastic bailout, financed by taxpayers. Each would receive 3,000 pounds (about $4,500), in cash, with no strings attached. The men were free to decide what to spend it on.

The only question they had to answer: What do you think is good for you?

“I didn’t have enormous expectations,” an aid worker recalled a year later. Yet the homeless men’s desires turned out to be quite modest. A phone, a passport, a dictionary — each participant had ideas about what would be best for him. None of the men wasted his money on alcohol, drugs or gambling. A year later, 11 of the 13 had roofs over their heads. (Some went to hostels; others to shelters.) They enrolled in classes, learned how to cook, got treatment for drug abuse and made plans for the future. After decades of authorities’ fruitless pushing, pulling, fines and persecution, 11 vagrants moved off the streets.
 

Something similar in Finland, they are giving free homes to homeless people (unconditionally):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/finland-homelessness-rough-sleepers-britain

Then there's also the idea of giving an unconditional basic income to people, that would completely eradicate poverty if implemented worldwide.
Even now there's a huge number of bullshit jobs that could very well be done by a robot in the future.

We really won't be able to provide jobs for everyone, so I see it as beyond inevitable that some form of benefits or basic income is granted to citizens.

[Thirdspace]

If you are lucky to be wealthy, you should see it as a social responsibility to help the less privileged people in the society.

A lot of wealthy people worked hard for that wealth, and no luck was involved. They deserve to live a comfortable life. A lot of poor people are not poor because they were unlucky, some are just lazy.

Poverty will end only ,if all laziness,procrastination,ignorance and daydreaming ends.

@Kakmakr @davis196 I agree with both of you! people work hard for his wealth, or at least their parents did  
luck has little effect on wealthiness, but laziness certainly will get you in poverty
even if you get big inheritance, you could lose it all in a blink of eye if you are too lazy to manage it

All that is necessary is the distribution of this wealth.

that's true but not in the sense of distributing/giving cash to people
most of the time they will just spend it in unproductive things or activities
you can distribute wealth by giving people opportunity to work and earn money

[Strufmbae]

OP,  you have the point and i appreciate it, if you ever heard about the story about the lost native americans, they are annihilated without a clear trace of who is the suspect to that case. Money is also an option to help poor to sustain their needs, but as long as people who has a profile of being rich since birth and has the thinking of greediness and power, this will not end the case. Crypto can help us to be anonymously living outside government laws but doesn't mean that it can be a 100% option.

[Finestream]

If you are lucky to be wealthy, you should see it as a social responsibility to help the less privileged people in the society.

A lot of wealthy people worked hard for that wealth, and no luck was involved. They deserve to live a comfortable life. A lot of poor people are not poor because they were unlucky, some are just lazy.

Poverty will end only ,if all laziness,procrastination,ignorance and daydreaming ends.

@Kakmakr @davis196 I agree with both of you! people work hard for his wealth, or at least their parents did  
luck has little effect on wealthiness, but laziness certainly will get you in poverty
even if you get big inheritance, you could lose it all in a blink of eye if you are too lazy to manage it

All that is necessary is the distribution of this wealth.

that's true but not in the sense of distributing/giving cash to people
most of the time they will just spend it in unproductive things or activities
you can distribute wealth by giving people opportunity to work and earn money

Exactly.Providing such opportunities to let poor people work in your company that will give a decent income monthly to sustain their family needs.Surely it will be a great help if not eradicate poverty,atleast it will be minimized.Giving them instant cash will only help them in a short term while providing them job opportunities can truly help them in a long term.

[tee-rex]

So many people are interested in amassing wealth without giving a dime to the less privilege around them, yet they will still be among the first to criticize the government in its failure to eradicate hunger and poverty in the country. You should also know that the duty of eradicating poverty must not be left to the government alone. You must also contribute your quota.

What makes you think the government is set to eradicate poverty? On the other hand, who if not the government can actually do something about it? They accumulate taxes which are supposed to redistribute wealth in the society, to help a little those who are stuck in poverty, to give them choice. Otherwise, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, which means that you can give someone an opportunity to get out of poverty but you can't force them to take it if they don't want to.

So it is a multifaceted, multilayered, and very complicated question, which cannot be reduced to claiming that we should be helping the less privileged people in the society in the way you mean it. Did it never occur to you that those beggars on the street you make mention of don't actually need your help, apart from asking for a few coins which they are going to waste that very evening on booze?

[Ryker1]

Poverty will be eradicated if people help themselves, if there's a government that help people out of the poverty, then they should help themselves too, it's a choice though, if you really want to leave out of poverty. But some people don't want to, it's like they want to be rich, but they don't help or find a solution or a way to become a rich person.

[deerlion]

There are a lot of wrong statements in your post. A lot of wealthy people worked hard for that wealth, and no luck was involved. They deserve to live a comfortable life. A lot of poor people are not poor because they were unlucky, some are just lazy.

A typical example of this was when the Berlin Wall was broken down. Some of the people who was living in East Germany was simply not used to working hard and they were lazy too. So when the Wall came down, a lot of them went into poverty, because they were too lazy to work or they were not used to the concept of hard work = higher income, like in the west.

The Communist system in East Germany made them lazy and some of them could not handle the change. So, Capitalism is not all bad, people are encouraged to work harder for a chance of a better life. <Why should you give that away to people who might just be lazy?>

I give more than 10% of my income to charities that are helping poor people find jobs and a way to sustain them until they reach that goal. <I do not give to charities, where people are not encouraged to uplift themselves.> Teach them how to Fish!

Absolutely ridiculous, this is the type of bootlicking that is destroying the world.  THE MAJORITY of wealthy people get rich off the work of wage slaves.  All the pfoits go to the shareholders and Executives.  You are seriously dillusional, the hardest working people on this planet are dirt poor. Wake up! You are very brainwashed.

[supermine]

So many people are interested in amassing wealth without giving a dime to the less privilege around them, yet they will still be among the first to criticize the government in its failure to eradicate hunger and poverty in the country. You should also know that the duty of eradicating poverty must not be left to the government alone. You must also contribute your quota.
 
If you are lucky to be wealthy, you should see it as a social responsibility to help the less privileged people in the society. If I may ask, do you feel comfortable driving past several beggars on the street when you have billions of money in your account that you or your entire family may not be able to exhaust in the next 100 years?
 
Think about this seriously. With the so much money in the world, poverty can greatly be reduced if not totally eradicated.
 
All that is necessary is the distribution of this wealth.

There is enough to go round.    

The employment with good salary is the only way to eradicate the poverty from this world but it won't happen because people never give free money to anyone even the right salary to most of their employees.And to be honest if all the people were equally distributed in wealth then no one will do work so the world will get stuck at its place since no one will go for their work so only smart people who have the knowledge to make money.

[Alone055]

So many people are interested in amassing wealth without giving a dime to the less privilege around them, yet they will still be among the first to criticize the government in its failure to eradicate hunger and poverty in the country.

No matter how much you provide for the needy around you, but you cannot finish their poverty as long as the government is not doing something for that. If the government is not doing anything to provide them an opportunity to work (unless they are handicaps) and earn for themselves, it deserves to be blamed for it.

If you are lucky to be wealthy, you should see it as a social responsibility to help the less privileged people in the society.

Not everyone get their wealth out of luck. Maybe a few get lucky enough to earn a lot of money in a very short period of time, or some may get it as an inheritance from their ancestors, but the majority of the people having a lot of wealth are the ones who have seen hardships in their lives as well but they came out the other side with a better lifestyle, and that's because they worked hard. And to be honest, the ones who get their wealth by luck, would rarely understand the situation of a person in need while if someone's wealth is hard-earned, he would definitely understand that without even saying.

do you feel comfortable driving past several beggars on the street when you have billions of money in your account that you or your entire family may not be able to exhaust in the next 100 years?

Though giving money to the homeless and needy people is a good deed, but that would absolutely not eradicate poverty, not at all. Passing by such people and giving them money, food, supplies or anything every day would simply give them enough for the day, but that wouldn't finish their poverty. As long as they don't get a source of income for themselves, they won't be stable, and that is what people or the governments should be looking forward to do. Only distributing wealth won't make the world a better place for the less privileged unless you provide them with a source of earning it of their own.

[vv181]

Giving money to the poor can only help in a short amount of time it doesn't improve their lives in the long run because you don't know what are they going to do with the money. This is the risk when helping people so others turn to charities but helping charities has its own risk too because you can't track everything and what they're going to do with the money (lack of transaprency).

give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

Charities is a good way to help the poor because it directly provides what they need. Not all charities foundation that doesn't inform what the donations are being used. For an example, the water foundation gives you a report for a donation you made.
It does not work that way, the rich distribute their wealth to the poor will significantly reduce the poverty rate. It needs a self-improvement to make ourself a better person in term of economy.

[hahay]

So many people are interested in amassing wealth without giving a dime to the less privilege around them, yet they will still be among the first to criticize the government in its failure to eradicate hunger and poverty in the country. You should also know that the duty of eradicating poverty must not be left to the government alone. You must also contribute your quota.
 
If you are lucky to be wealthy, you should see it as a social responsibility to help the less privileged people in the society. If I may ask, do you feel comfortable driving past several beggars on the street when you have billions of money in your account that you or your entire family may not be able to exhaust in the next 100 years?
 
Think about this seriously. With the so much money in the world, poverty can greatly be reduced if not totally eradicated.
 
All that is necessary is the distribution of this wealth.

There is enough to go round.    

The assets we have or what we get are not entirely ours, because there is a part of our property to be donated to the poor or people who are not capable or people who are in need. I always apply this if I get income and I don't care how much income I get, as long as we are able to share happiness in the form of material why we don't share it. Get used to a simple and full life of gratitude for what we have gained, so we will easily share a little of our wealth for people in need.

[ziac]

So many people are interested in amassing wealth without giving a dime to the less privilege around them, yet they will still be among the first to criticize the government in its failure to eradicate hunger and poverty in the country. You should also know that the duty of eradicating poverty must not be left to the government alone. You must also contribute your quota.
 
If you are lucky to be wealthy, you should see it as a social responsibility to help the less privileged people in the society. If I may ask, do you feel comfortable driving past several beggars on the street when you have billions of money in your account that you or your entire family may not be able to exhaust in the next 100 years?
 
Think about this seriously. With the so much money in the world, poverty can greatly be reduced if not totally eradicated.
 
All that is necessary is the distribution of this wealth.

There is enough to go round.    

Its not your fault born being poor.. Its your fault dying poor.. You cant feed a poor forever let them strive too and let them stand on their feet helping them in other means like providing job instead of spoon feeding them.

[bigmelons25]

If wealthy inequality gets too far out of hand the poor citizens revolt and overthrow the government.  This has happened time after time in the past buy people still refuse to learn from it.

[EdenHazard]

Each wealthy must have a through process to get a wealth they have, not so simple the people think. Even more they need a relative long time to get it. Surely, for those who has got wealth this is a reward for them for the hard work he has done. The mindset of the rich person or we can say they as a successful person certainly have a clear purpose in their lives. The mindset of them isn't limited just on this day, but they were thought the other day to keep arround in adequacy in economic terms. The most important is just one, they can manage money that they have in order to effloresce or even grow someday.

For instance, they save a money or jump down to the field of investment. All we know, no matter how much we have money now but we just save our money in my pocket it will useless, remember with the matter of inflation that each years we will face. Unless with someone who has a less economic thing, and I just thing, they couldn't manage the money they have and they tend to eliminate what they have and even just keep it in their wallet. They don't think what will happen afterwards, all they think is that the money they have will be enough to live in the future, and of course this will be very dangerous.

To eradicate poverty it will happened if the main actors can change their own mindset.

[Cojiro]

So many people are interested in amassing wealth without giving a dime to the less privilege around them, yet they will still be among the first to criticize the government in its failure to eradicate hunger and poverty in the country. You should also know that the duty of eradicating poverty must not be left to the government alone. You must also contribute your quota.
 
If you are lucky to be wealthy, you should see it as a social responsibility to help the less privileged people in the society. If I may ask, do you feel comfortable driving past several beggars on the street when you have billions of money in your account that you or your entire family may not be able to exhaust in the next 100 years?
 
Think about this seriously. With the so much money in the world, poverty can greatly be reduced if not totally eradicated.
 
All that is necessary is the distribution of this wealth.

There is enough to go round.    

I don't really like to help other people materially such as giving cash, because it doesn't educate me. I think I prefer to help indirectly such as giving jobs or other things that are more educating.

[Lorin]

Theres a sayaing that " if you born poor, its not your fault but if you died poor its your fault".  Your lucky if you were born rich but how about those people that still in the poor section. Yes its hard to find a job better job if you dont have but you need to put an effort to become successful, dont waste time. You can change your life by taking action in a little way, if your rich and can afford to help other go for it.

[Akpuv]

I don't see anything wrong in giving arms to the poor or the less privileged in the society. Even the holy books also support arms giving. I quite agree that some people who are poor are in that predicament as a result of their negligence. But there are also several other people who may even be far hard working and yet they get nothing. Those who have so much and yet not willing to help the poor in my opinion are just being greedy and selfish. When you die, what becomes of your wealth??? It is best to live a good and generous life instead of living a stingy and selfish life.
Practice arms giving or upliftment of the poor around you. I think you should even be embarrassed when you built your mansion in a community where the other people cannot even have a single room to sleep. I am not saying you should accommodate them in your home, or build a house for all the persons in your community, but you can at least do something to better their situation as long as you still have so much to spare that is idling away.

Try to leave a legacy behind and be remembered for good.
Poverty eradication is what the United Nations is also fighting and it should be the goal of everyone.

[BitHodler]

These threads point out why it's so difficult to act, not only from the side of the governments, but also from the side of finding a way to eradicate poverty in a manner we all are happy with.

Governments aren't just one body. It may look like so, but there are so many different streams of influences and opinions, that it's next to impossible to expect them to jump in and offer a helping hand.

In other words, it's up to you to make the best out of every situation, because only you knows what's the best for yourself, not a bunch of politicians in suits only out to score cheap points.

Even if the environment around you doesn't offer many opportunities to improve your situation, doing something in an attempt to change your life is better than doing nothing and thus not change anything at all.