Without making too big a deal out of the way the question is put, I really feel I ought to mention that the question of "class" isn't really a measure of how much money you have. The only way giving everyone more or less money would have the effects suggested is if there was no supply and demand to consider, no inflation, nothing like that.
That said, I voted "stay the same", because from where I'm standing, the other options wouldn't actually accomplish anything in the way of evening out inequalities or fixing the world's social problems. In an economic system like the one we're living in, it seems to me ( and this is, in a way, the main contention of the dependency school of development theory ) that you can't improve living conditions, standards of living and so on, in one place, without having a negative impact in another.
Simply giving more money to everyone would either lead to no change, or, if the spread is uneven, it would lead to greater equality in some places and less in others. On the other hand, simply taking money away from everyone would just end up putting more people in poverty ( absolute poverty, that is ), and simply give the still-wealthy more people to exploit. Somewhat paradoxically, taking money from everyone would probably have the result of making the wealthy a great deal wealthier.