Which problem will you choose to solve?

[Y3shot]

I would choose to solve problems of the poor. Cause majority of the problems that the poor have, can mostly be solved by money. And as for the rich problem, it could differ in a lot of things since their problems cannot be solved by money. It could be about love, health and such. But choosing solving the poor's problems doesn't mean a short term solution cause if the "solution" we're talking about is by giving them money or what, they will still end up having the same problem after a period of time when they run out of money.

But tbh, solving the poor people's problem would be so hard to do, cause if it's just as easy as answering this question, there could be lesser problems.

As a man the worse problem a can ever have is being broke, this is a problem that can run someone mental health and do things that was never planned to be done. Solving the problem of poverty is the biggest problem you can take from the life of man, u think this is the most important thing everyone want. Most of the problem of the rich man can be solve with money, but all the problems of the poor man ties down to money.

 If a rich man is having health problems, money can solve the basic things of the  challenge but if the poor man is having a problem pertaining to health if their is no money it can lead to death.  Helping the poor man to solve his challenge is the best thing to do to humanity.

[Negotiation]

Both the rich and the poor have problems but the rich have a lot of money with which they can easily solve the problem. The poor cannot do anything because of lack of money, which does lead to more extreme poverty. It is not possible to completely eliminate the problem of poverty but taking some necessary steps will cure it to some extent. Although it has set a global example of poverty eradication, it has not reduced the disparity between the rich and the poor. If poverty alleviation and social development are to be sustained, development activities in rural areas should be increased. Areas of investment should be created in developmental sectors. To reduce this disparity and sustain success in poverty alleviation, the budget must be formulated keeping in mind the extreme poor.

[Smack That Ace]

I would choose to solve problems of the poor. Cause majority of the problems that the poor have, can mostly be solved by money. And as for the rich problem, it could differ in a lot of things since their problems cannot be solved by money. It could be about love, health and such. But choosing solving the poor's problems doesn't mean a short term solution cause if the "solution" we're talking about is by giving them money or what, they will still end up having the same problem after a period of time when they run out of money.

But tbh, solving the poor people's problem would be so hard to do, cause if it's just as easy as answering this question, there could be lesser problems.

If you already know the problem of the poor is money then you should choose to solve the problem of the rich first because the rich provide jobs and income for the poor. If the rich have problems, then obviously the problems of the poor are also very difficult to solve. For example, the economic crisis is causing many companies to go bankrupt and thereby causing unemployment. Whose problem is it? And to solve unemployment we need to do?

The rich and the poor have a close relationship with each other and we need to solve common problems to be able to completely solve the problem. You cannot solve the problems of the poor if you choose to ignore the rich.

[abel1337]

I think solving problem of the poor is what I want to choose. Knowing that most of the poor people doesn't have proper education and financial education at the first place. If their problems is connected in terms of surviving, it would be no brainer where rich people can survive easily with the vast amount of money they have. I know that rich people can give jobs to poor people but solving poor people problems carry more value for me because it somehow connected with their survival. We revolve on money or on things with value. Rich people has a lot of that but most poor people doesn't have. Without money, the struggle of surviving is an everyday routine.

[Pierre 2]

Solving problems of poor BUT educated/capitalist/freedom loving people will always work. People underestimate how good poor people can achieve when they are not limited with their wealth. But obviously not lazy, uneducated labor. Education is a must. Financial knowledge is a must. I don't hate rich people but most of them are crony to be honest. They don't deserve more help in life, they always do good for themselves.

[slapper]

Both the rich and the poor have problems but the rich have a lot of money with which they can easily solve the problem. The poor cannot do anything because of lack of money, which does lead to more extreme poverty. It is not possible to completely eliminate the problem of poverty but taking some necessary steps will cure it to some extent. Although it has set a global example of poverty eradication, it has not reduced the disparity between the rich and the poor. If poverty alleviation and social development are to be sustained, development activities in rural areas should be increased. Areas of investment should be created in developmental sectors. To reduce this disparity and sustain success in poverty alleviation, the budget must be formulated keeping in mind the extreme poor.

Money isn't a magic bullet for the rich; it's just a tool. But let's be honest: the rich do have better tools to deal with life's challenges. This is not an excuse; it's just a harsh fact of modern business. Your reasoning falls apart, though, when you say that the poor are useless and can't change their situation

Even though it's good to put money into development and rural areas, it's important to realize that traditional economic answers are becoming less useful in our increasingly digital world. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are making wealth more accessible to everyone, giving people more power, and putting ressure on standard financial institutions. Yes, there are differences, but cryptocurrencies offer a free way for the poor to deal with them

Choosing to help the rich with their problems? That's the old way of thinking. Accept the blockchain, level the playing field, and help us create a fair future. Even if it means taking down institutions that have been around for hundreds of years

[Juse14]

I think solving problem of the poor is what I want to choose. Knowing that most of the poor people doesn't have proper education and financial education at the first place. If their problems is connected in terms of surviving, it would be no brainer where rich people can survive easily with the vast amount of money they have. I know that rich people can give jobs to poor people but solving poor people problems carry more value for me because it somehow connected with their survival. We revolve on money or on things with value. Rich people has a lot of that but most poor people doesn't have. Without money, the struggle of surviving is an everyday routine.

That is a very good goal, eradicating poverty is a difficult thing because it requires power, strength and wealth to do that, it is not an easy thing to do by one person. You also need a lot of time for your goal to run well.
State three is a place where there are more poor people, maybe it will be a very suitable place for you to complete your goal. but in my opinion, eradicating poverty significantly lies in the first step, namely education, where education will greatly influence the rate of human development in correcting life problems, the more people have good education, the less financial problems their lives will have, so in my opinion this is That could be your focus, sir, or do you have another way?

[gunhell16]

This is just my opinion, if the person I am going to help is a rich person, Then I am capable of helping him/her and he/she has good manners to be helpful to others or people who need help, I will do it if I help him/her. Why? because that person because of the wealth that he/she has many poor people he can also help.

Because as the saying goes, what is sown will surely be reaped abundantly. So many people will also benefit from what is planted. Although, it's not bad to help the poor, it's just that a poor person can only be helped to a limited extent. This is just my opinion and perception anyway.

[MFahad]

In reality, resolving the issues of the wealthy isn't all that challenging. Even when it comes to health problems, every individual shares the same health concerns, as we're all human. What complicates solving the problems of the affluent is the emergence of our business orientations. Yet, the real complexity arises from our business mindset. The playing field in the business realm among the wealthy is a fierce one; numerous individuals vie for easy gains from the affluent.

Insurance companies are even willing to incur hefty marketing costs to capture the attention of the affluent. The competition in the realms of insurance, finance, and healthcare is notably intense. This stems from the fact that the market of the affluent is both dense and fiercely competitive. Consequently, it becomes a challenge for ordinary individuals to emerge victorious in this contest.

Health related issues are same in both poor and wealthy because they are humans but the main thing is treatment so I think that if poor people get money then they become cured by proper treatment but sometimes wealthy people cannot get cured instead of having money so this issue is very serious for them.

I think the more money comes more healthy related problems originates I don't know what the reason but I have experienced that wealthy people are more sad than poor ones.
According to you statement I think that in a field of business poor are depended on wealthy individuals as if they wants to involved in business then business grows rapidly but if they denied to make investment in any business then such business hardly continues to a successful destination.

[Oilacris]

In reality, resolving the issues of the wealthy isn't all that challenging. Even when it comes to health problems, every individual shares the same health concerns, as we're all human. What complicates solving the problems of the affluent is the emergence of our business orientations. Yet, the real complexity arises from our business mindset. The playing field in the business realm among the wealthy is a fierce one; numerous individuals vie for easy gains from the affluent.

Insurance companies are even willing to incur hefty marketing costs to capture the attention of the affluent. The competition in the realms of insurance, finance, and healthcare is notably intense. This stems from the fact that the market of the affluent is both dense and fiercely competitive. Consequently, it becomes a challenge for ordinary individuals to emerge victorious in this contest.

Health related issues are same in both poor and wealthy because they are humans but the main thing is treatment so I think that if poor people get money then they become cured by proper treatment but sometimes wealthy people cannot get cured instead of having money so this issue is very serious for them.

I think the more money comes more healthy related problems originates I don't know what the reason but I have experienced that wealthy people are more sad than poor ones.
According to you statement I think that in a field of business poor are depended on wealthy individuals as if they wants to involved in business then business grows rapidly but if they denied to make investment in any business then such business hardly continues to a successful destination.

When it comes to potential health problems the wealthy people are more susceptible into those complicated illness or health issues compared to those poor ones.Why? they are living in a surrounding or place on which it is really that clean or something comfortable and out from those bad elements around or not simply that being exposed too much and on the time that there would be some sudden change of environment or able to meet up people who are sick or having those illnesses then they are really that prone and cant really that fight off that much because of their weak immune i should say.
Im not saying that rich peoples does have weak immune but we know that rich people do mostly get those illness which are non curable and despite on having the funds or financial capacity
it wouldnt really be still giving out that assurance that they would really get well. Also, having tons of money doesnt indicate nor assure happy life. Yes, you could travel, you could buy all the things
you do want but there are things which cant be bought like love and respect but of course people are born greedy and having tons of money is something that already a main common goal for most people.

[panganib999]

The problems of the poor far outweigh the issues that the rich has over their extravagant and little lives. For the most part, they don't have to worry about dying of starvation and being homeless which are pretty massive issues for the poor. Once those are solved we can pretty much rely on these people to be functioning members of the society that could help enhance the workforce of any country on the planet. For instance, in the US alone, the fact that they have millions of homeless people on the streets just waiting to get that big break they deserve so they can turn their lives around is enough of a motivation for any legislator with half a brain and a heart for these people to pass laws that encourage them to get back on their feet and recover with the government's help.

[Nwada001]

If I am to reply to you and share my own opinion and whom I will like to support and the problem I will like to solve based on an entrepreneur mindset, I will have to check scale and observe among the both which will be beneficial to my business and which of the individuals will be able to push my business to the next level, which will bring me to the rich people, as they have the capacity of paying higher if the problem solving tools that I have at hand can be purchased and exchanged for money, then they will be of better choice and interest, as few of them can be able to cover up the sales that you might be thinking of covering in a whole month just under the interval of days. Which is what every business-oriented person will want.
 
But if I'm to look at it the other way around and sympathise with the people who are most needy and those who are actually in need of help, and I need little to nothing in return, then I will have to choose between helping a lot of poor people and helping the rich, as the rich have higher chances of getting whatever they need from somewhere else, whereas those people in the poor category won't have a lot of options presented to them, which will make me consider helping them rather than wasting my resources on few people who won't value it.

[Uruhara]

This is just my opinion, if the person I am going to help is a rich person, Then I am capable of helping him/her and he/she has good manners to be helpful to others or people who need help, I will do it if I help him/her. Why? because that person because of the wealth that he/she has many poor people he can also help.

Because as the saying goes, what is sown will surely be reaped abundantly. So many people will also benefit from what is planted. Although, it's not bad to help the poor, it's just that a poor person can only be helped to a limited extent. This is just my opinion and perception anyway.

So true. And actually both options are equally useful. Helping the problems faced by people or helping the problems faced by poor people, actually helping one of them will still bring benefits to both. Well when we help the problems of the rich then in the end the rich will also help the problems of the poor. And vice versa, by helping poor people it will actually help a little with the problems of rich people. Because rich people and poor people actually both need each other. The rich need the services of the poor in helping their daily work. And poor people also need help from rich people, such as to get jobs and receive wages from rich people. So helping both of them will still benefit both of them. It doesn't matter which direction we help first.

[Richkiedx]

for me I want my life to be good for my family I want to achieve all their dreams my dream is their dream as a first born child I will do everything to make all of that come true even if it's hard to endure just to make my life better families

[Richkiedx]

It's a problem for poor people.. why when you're rich! you can buy everything you can while if you are poor will they trample on your dignity I want you to be rich or poor everyone should be equal I know no one is rich or poor they are the same people!!!

[knowngunman]

I came across this tweet, so the reference is the username. I thought it was a topic worth bringing up for discussion to see the choice that will be made by forum members. This topic is about solving problems as a service you render to make a living. Which of the problems will you prefer to solve as a service you render? the problems of the poor? or the problems of the rich? (support your choice with a reason)

In a situation like this, certain things need to be considered before making your conclusion. Sometimes, helping one or few rich men is equivalent to helping many poor people indirectly. For instance, if a rich man company with hundreds or thousands of poor men working is on the verge of collapsing and you have the capacity to help the company back to functionality again you can see that helping the rich in this circumstance is paramount than helping poor people directly who in few days will still need to be helped again. So, it all depends on the situation at hand.

On the other hand, helping lots of poors to grow will help to bridge the poverty gap in our society as they're likely to render help some days. Poor people are the threat to economy and that's why they need help the most because helping them is an avenue to healthy and standard economy as they'll no longer depends on government or other person anymore.

[dothebeats]

It's a problem for poor people.. why when you're rich! you can buy everything you can while if you are poor will they trample on your dignity I want you to be rich or poor everyone should be equal I know no one is rich or poor they are the same people!!!

I am very familiar with your point regarding the obvious difference in treatment and lifestyle of the rich and the poor, however, the topic being discussed here isn't the state of the two statuses but the debate between solving the problem of the poor and the rich and which one will the majority choose. Despite the difference in treatment that the rich and the poor get in society, there is no doubt that both statuses have their own problems to deal with and in some occasions solving the problem of the rich can have an indirect effect on the poor and vice versa. Hence, this post is trying to see how the majority of the members of the community or this forum evaluate whether solving the problem of the rich is easier and more beneficial or is solving the problem of the poor. No one is erasing the fact that the two statuses have a significant difference that divides them into various factors, in fact, it is these difference that members are taking into account as they answer OP's question. I just thought you might need a clarification of the post and question as your answer is diving into a different discussion.

[Macoach]

I wont be sentimental on this because getting rich is a choice and as well getting poor is a choice. You choose which one you want to be. This question is kind of tricky to me but il solve problems for everyone for everyone class in the country. Something that would benefit both the rich and the poor. Wealth and income aren't limitless, although the hope is that they can become larger in the future than they are right now.

Also, while rich people getting richer doesn't inherently harm the poor, that doesn't imply that there aren't ways the rich might get richer that do harm the poor, either intentionally or as a side-effect.  I don't see inequality as a problem and at that even it is it affects both the poor and rich so why not solve problems for both.

[Agbamoni]

I wont be sentimental on this because getting rich is a choice and as well getting poor is a choice. You choose which one you want to be. This question is kind of tricky to me but il solve problems for everyone for everyone class in the country. Something that would benefit both the rich and the poor. Wealth and income aren't limitless, although the hope is that they can become larger in the future than they are right now.

Also, while rich people getting richer doesn't inherently harm the poor, that doesn't imply that there aren't ways the rich might get richer that do harm the poor, either intentionally or as a side-effect.  I don't see inequality as a problem and at that even it is it affects both the poor and rich so why not solve problems for both.

Given that you don't seem to recognize inequality as an issue, I'm not sure whatever element of inequality speaks to you. According to what I've read in the responses thus far, inequality has been shown to hinder economic progress, exacerbate poverty, foster societal mistrust that can lead to the dissolution of social ties, and even threaten the democratic process itself.

Even if they see some income growth, the poor nonetheless suffer from high inequality since it raises their cost of living. Luxury and useless products are frequently purchased by wealthy people in search of higher returns, which drives up prices particularly for things like housing, faster than the wages of the poorest. Do you disagree that high inequality creates these problems and makes it harder for the poor even while they obtain some part of growth?

[SmartGold01]

Problem solving depends on the field and area you find yourself, you can a little problems by saving thousand of soul by either preventing a serious incident that could cause a building to burn down, at this point you have solved a problems that involves all kinds of people which is either left for the government of such country to choose between which area you should be employed to function as a problem solver in that department.
Solving a problems for the rich gives you an access to became known while solving for poor gives you the room to become of charitable, whereby depending on God for your rewards.

But however, working for the rich or solving a problem for the rich most times doesn't guaranteed your success because many individuals who are working with the government doesn't solely became rich, typical example are teachers in my country. They are teaching at this point solving problems not only problems but help to raise the country and then government aren't increasing their salaries. Yet they are still under financial stress which I think isn't worth working for such people either be it Rich or the government. Self employed is always better at least it reliefs you from financial hassle.