The issue would probably be the lack of infrastructure in poorer countries, as well as the fact that you couldn't use it to actually buy anything (though this depends on if the distribution is a one-time deal or a permanent income change). Assuming this a a permanent income change, then if you go to a shopkeeper and try to buy something, you won't be able to. The shopkeeper won't earn anything from it, because they won't be allowed to keep the money - all of their income will be redistributed.
They make zero money, but they lose a resource, resulting in a net loss.
And so money dies. The market dies. Capitalism dies with it. The money you've passed out becomes useless, because you can't really trade it.
You'll have to depend on your government to help you get the things that you need.
In countries with a lot of infrastructure, without corruption thrown into the mix (as in modern day North Korea), this might work. If the people were dedicated to it, it probably would work. Everyone, economically speaking, would be equal. There wouldn't be opportunities for advancement in business or in housing or economic status, which would anger some people, but this impossibility could lead to something like Star Trek's federation, if you want to be idealistic: everyone would work for advancing themselves in education, philosophy, and friendships.
But... this might not work in the world's poorer countries. Again, it's going to be difficult to trade when money is now effectively worthless... resource-rich countries would probably be alright. The Middle East might be able to improve its infrastructure significantly by bartering its oil with other nations, or exporting solar energy somehow if the world has become more clean.
But countries without resources and without infrastructure would suffer. The people have money, sure, but they can't spend it, and the government would have 1) no way to distribute food and 2) no way to convince other countries to help it build infrastructure. Already, countries like this have issues with starvation... I imagine it would become significantly worse. Unless governments assign people to humanitarian jobs that work in other countries (because the government would have to be the one employing everyone with businesses nonexistent)… undeveloped countries would suffer. And without a market, there wouldn't be much of an opportunity to get ahead.
It would be roughly the same as it is now. The rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer, but on a country scale rather than a social scale.
Now, if this is a one time deal and everyone has to start over with equal money… well. It would do absolutely nothing but destroy investments and force the market to start over. Yes, there are about USD60,000,000,000,000 on the planet.
But this would equal USD10,000 for every man, woman, and child on Earth, and that's… it's certainly equalizing, but by no means would it make everyone a billionaire. I imagine a lot of people would evade this by temporarily investing into property and then selling it afterwards.
This would create a competitive environment coming out of it. A very competitive game, I suppose. Either spend your $10,000 wisely and come out with an empire, or be trampled. It would be a bloodbath among the formerly rich, a sort of modern day Game of Thrones or Hunger Games as newly formed companies try to squeeze themselves through the crucible of losing everything. It would be interesting. Would I want to be there when it happened? No. But a book would be nice.
Still, you would see formerly poor entrepreneurs who never had a chance emerging victorious. Poor countries, too, might benefit as their citizens do, from taxes and such.
All of this neglects current companies. Is Google being disbanded here? What about Apple and Microsoft? Many people are rich because they own large corporations. If the owner of one of these companies lost all of his personal wealth, he or she would still own a large corporation and be able to quickly turn a new profit.
It's also important to note that the destruction of Google would mean riots in the streets. I'm not kidding. Remember SOPA? You'd lose Google Search, Gmail, Youtube, Google Maps, Android apps and phones... once, Google went down for 5 minutes and internet traffic went down 40%.
Taking down corporations like this means taking down empires.
I, for one, can say that if Google, Microsoft, Apple, Spotify, Facebook, Reddit, Stackexchange, and the internet became nonexistent... well. I think most people would be wishing they still had Spotify to listen to the Les Miserables soundtrack while storming a building with a mob.
So. Would it be positive? Would it be negative? Honestly, you get to decide. I think it depends on exactly the scenario. In the first one, you get to explore the pros and cons of sudden communism, and in the second, excessive capitalism. It also depends on where you live: poor countries may benefit in the second, but will likely have difficulty in the first. Whatever you choose though - capitalist dystopia, communist dystopia, capitalist utopia, communist utopia - bear in mind that it likely won't last. However good a situation or government is, history will eventually tear it down. So there should be cons, however minor, that will become bigger and bigger over time - civilizations tend towards entropy.
Finally, it depends on whether or not Google is going away.
…because if Google is going away...