You can do us a favor and outline for us how doing that is a first step to solving poverty. Otherwise it seems like you just regurgitated a populist meme.
Ok, let's say you find a way to distribute the resources evenly between everybody. Haven't you solved poverty then?
Then if you want to solve inequalities, do you think it's easier to start by solving inequalities between the poor people, or is it easier to start by taking money from those who are insanely rich for no good reason?
Your first step is "take" and your second step is "figure it out". If you did figure it out, you wouldn't have to be forcefully taking.
Are you assuming we already have enough resources to solve poverty? Isn't the actual issue that even with perfectly equal distribution we don't have enough resources for every body?
If the pie isn't big enough, why is the communist's focus always on how to divide the pie, rather than growing the pie? Do communists have anything to add at all when it comes to increasing productivity so we can all have more?
Wasn't lack of productivity exactly what killed communism? Even China didn't wake up until it opened its markets.
Inequality isn't increasing because poor people are doing worse. Poor people are doing better. Poor people's conditions are improving faster than they ever have. It's true that the richest people's wealth grew even faster than that, therefore increasing inequality.
But if you really care about the wellbeing of the poor, then you wouldn't distracted by inequality when the conditions are improving. You'd interrupt the most successful ever for the worst system ever, driven by jealousy, bitterness, and moral indignation.
I can't really tell you how communists think, to be honest, because I am not exactly one. It's a weird thing (in the US?) that everyone who is not libertarian is considered communist (and not any communist: mostly the kind that is "the enemy" in cold war era video games, apparently).
There are many systems that would probably be considered communist in the US (at least by those of you who seem to have no clue about anything that is not libertarian) that work really well without genocides. But you'd have to open a book that is not US-centered to see that.
I'm not American, nor am I a libertarian. I'm a socialist Arab.
I still object to communism, and populist memes like "eat the rich." At best they're immature, at worst they're agents of chaos and destruction who actually harm the lives of millions when they get what they want.
I said "prevent the ultra rich from getting even richer", and you understood "murder tens of millions of people for the cause".
That escalated quickly. I would be tempted to say that you completely, absolutely hallucinated the meaning of my words, but then... well English isn't my first language, so maybe that's on me.
