Hacker News Reader

It may well do. The percentage loss in wealth is smaller, the time spent in debt will be minimal rather than months or years, and wealthy people may be less likely to experience anxiety and depression as a result of being in debt.

yes, it turns from a no to a hard no. that's destroying a lot to gain a little.

many of those "rich" people could be supporting many other "poor" people via jobs that you just wiped out for a small personal gain.

$10k is nothing for rich people. Just putting them in debt for it doesn't mean nothing of value was provided.

The reverse would be true where poor people could be ruined, unless the value provided is worth significantly more than the debt created, which seems doubtful.

$10k in debt would mean wiping out their net worth so they have more debt than assets. Not just $10k payment.

To be in $10k debt, it means you have more debt than assets.

Either way, wealth distribution is wrong. Stealing is stealing.

How is wealth distribution wrong? It sounds like you are arguing in favour of inequality.

Mine does