CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
How does one become rich? Employment and delegation, lucky ass lottery ticket, collusion and embezzlement maybe... but nevertheless, one becomes rich with only the resources of others. No one rich individual can say they are rich purely by their own merit. If that were the case, they'd also be living in an enclosed economic system in which they are the richest, poorest, and smelliest of all persons involved.
but nevertheless, one becomes rich with only the resources of others.
Resources given through mutual exchange. Everyone, by using the system, is giving as much as they take. There's no way to prove or disprove otherwise. To automatically assume that there's some kind of obligation that a successful individual owes to the unsuccessful individuals is to say that somehow you have a way of telling who's a thief or a lucky bastard or a hoarder.
No one owes anything to anyone unless an agreement had been made. Your parents give you most of the things growing up, so maybe it's nice to give back when they get older, but the country has given you what you payed for in taxes, the employees have given you what you payed for in wages, and the consumers have given you what you payed for in goods and services. There is no obligation for a generic rich person, they have given enough.
Now I don't fully agree with the debate, and I'd like to make that clear, but I do believe that to an extent, an employer will and should offer at least nominal health care of some sort to their employees, out of the self interest and mutual need of both involved parties. Now if that employer wants to offer full health care, I'm fuckin' down. My current employer REQUIRES medical insurance to work, and in doing so they kinda swindle you into their own health company. Luckily it's cheap as fuck! But the point being is that an employer should help their lower-downs, because they are the floor board of their business after all. Now those that don't want to get jobs also don't want to make back taxes and it's their own fault. But of those that can't get a job and are trying, I do feel sorry for them. It does suck and I do believe in social programs that assist them. Now how we determine whom deserves what assistance when is a whole other plateau of shit.
but I do believe that to an extent, an employer will and should offer at least nominal health care of some sort to their employees, out of the self interest and mutual need of both involved parties.
It's often cheaper to lower someone's wage and give them health benefits instead because health insurance companies can offer cheap alternatives to premium health insurance when companies ask for it.
Basically, the idea is that a dollar will be removed from your salary for a "dollar's" worth of healthcare. I use quotation marks because it's often not a true dollar's worth, usually a few cents less.
My current employer REQUIRES medical insurance to work, and in doing so they kinda swindle you into their own health company. Luckily it's cheap as fuck!
My point. It's usually advantageous for companies, especially with tax incentives. This does not mean, however, that the employee is benefiting. In many cases, the employee is actually being screwed.
But the point being is that an employer should help their lower-downs, because they are the floor board of their business after all.
They're helping them by offering a job and a salary. Replacing a percentage of that salary for health benefits isn't "better," and can, in many ways, be worse. Often times, health benefits are more supportive towards insurance companies than the consumers.
It does suck and I do believe in social programs that assist them. Now how we determine whom deserves what assistance when is a whole other plateau of shit.
Private charity can and does do a much better job than social programs in assisting those who NEED it. As well, the only things limiting charities these days are taxes and regulations that make starting up a charity so expensive in the first place. Consider how for-profit charities are taxed, while non-profit charities are just expensive and often times corrupted.
I'd also like to reference systems where the "mutual benefit" is merely a "I need you sorta, you need me, I hold the cards, here take the shit end of the deal and don't complain" situations, i.e. being stuck in a shitty underpaying job. The employee takes it because he/she needs it, the employer hires because they need grunt work, and anyone can really take the cake for them. There is no advancement in these jobs and there is no motivation for the employer to ever give these employees a leg up. Those jobs also don't look too well on resumes and don't necessarily promise a better job. The fallacy that you can just leave and get a better job where you are treated better is untrue, now more so than ever. NOT TO SAY THEY DESERVE ANY EXTRA HELP,,,, well yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
There is a story about one man how he became a millioner.First he took one apple and made from it juice and sold that.Than he took 2 apple and again made from them juice and sold .After some time his grandma died and left him inheritance.......
If a person really works hard he will get a good result from it....I mean all poor people work hard working from day till night for earning money so in the result they will get what they deserve
Given that the rich and poor are living in the same country, yes, to a degree.
I think everyone has an obligation to help everyone achieve basic, minimum human rights, or right to life. Things like food and water and not having to choose between fixing a life-threatening illness and being in debt for the rest of your life.
Liberalism seems to be pushing for everyone to be equal, to start on a level playing field, but this seems highly unrealistic to me. We can't realistically get everyone through a four year university by taxing the upper and middle classes, for example. That's an area where some people will have the benefit of a college education, and others wont. But everyone should have the benefit of their health and well being when trying to make a living for themselves, and lots and lots of people are born into situations where they don't have that benefit, and that's where the obligation steps in.
Don't you think it's important to draw a line somewhere, though? Suffering is an unavoidable (and in part, good) aspect of being a human being, and we could all use a little help in bettering ourselves or our socioeconomic status. And with the exception of 2 people on the planet, nobody doesn't have someone richer (to draw from) and poorer (to help) than themselves. It seems unless we find somewhere to draw the line (i.e. okay, you have food, water, housing, and job, and health care, time to stop living off government cheese) it seems we would be stuck in a never ending cycle of people funneling their money down and then demanding more money from on high.
It's also important to note that you can be a good person without devoting all of your money & time & other resources to helping other people - but would you deny that you would be a better person if you gave it all away?
And yes, in terms of socioeconomic relationships in society, you could definitely do more harm than good by being a 'good' person - just as you could do harm by not killing someone (while you use the less extreme example of true economic egalitarianism being bad for economic growth). But that doesn't mean that killing someone is morally correct.
Yes. Unless they don't care about the welfare of, well, everyone.
But seriously, you have all that money and you just keep it dormant and unused? What is the point of having something you will never use while someone else could use it? It is just stupid. Give as many excuses as you want or desire, it won't change the reality that you're an idiot if you have far more than you will ever need and don't share it or give it as an aid to those who don't have enough or lack it almost completely. Money promotes what? Greed. Is greed good? No.
Resources that are readily available but aren't in use, aren't in circulation or are kept away from it for some time, slow down human progress.
You've ever heard and seen people struggling to get funds for something? Like building a new school or acquiring anything necessary? But can't because they do not have the money while there are literally billions and even trillions(?) lying in wait, unused. And here goes again that money is negative to human progress... compared to what could be.
They don't have the obligation but they're stupid and greedy fucks if they don't help.
I think, yes. How do people become rich? Through the labor of poor people. For example the owner of big company is rich only because of fact that enormous number of people work on him. They give him something and he must return them something too. I don't mean only salary, it must be bigger and deeper, it must be really HELP. Help with things that they need for example medicine, clothes, domestic tools and etc.
EVERYONE SHOULD BE RICH. basic minimum income 1 million dollars loaned into existence by the federal reserve like they do for private banks. Inflation can be illegal.
Free Markets have to be balanced with welfare of the majority. I don't think their bad I think they're completely neutral, but people can and do exploit them for personal gain. Personal gain at the cost to the majority.
The poor need to be helped because it benefits society, that should be the driving force behind any form of help.
In a truely libertarian society the poor would be left to fend for themselfs, even Ron Paul (Big fan btw) would be shocked.
Total free market puts control of the goverment in the hands of the rich. Goverments would be who ever was the best financed, who in turn would be the one who gave the lowest taxes to the wealthest people.
So goverment itself would need to be regulated but by doing this you are also regulating the market as you are stoping the free market from financing goverment.
If you believe only big goverment benefits from helping the poor then at what point do you suggest assistance is removed, food stamps, mediaid, ambulace service, education?
Again I'm not against free market, I just don't trust the people who run it.
All you have to do to see the effect of a free market on quality of living and wages is look to the countries who have little to no laws regarding wages. China, India, African nations etc, all have vast quantities of people who are wage slaves, that is, they must devote their entire lives to working in poor conditions just to survive, because competition is not a reliable way to keep wages reasonable.
People in India, China and African nations are so poor not because the lack of minimum wage laws, which if enacted would cause more poverty, they are poor because their lack of high productivity due to little savings invested in capital goods in addition, they are robbed of their income from the government, which prevents them from saving and investing.
As some other users have said, legally they have an obligation through welfare institutions. Morally? No. Their money is theirs because they earned it, and no one else is ENTITLED to it. However, if they don't invest some of their money in job-creating ventures and/or donate to charity many people (including myself) would view them as selfish.
Should be rather dumb if someone did. Unless that someone is a politician.
A way too large percentage goes to military, another large percentage goes to the politicians' pockets, and another large percentage is wasted on pointless crap no one needs. Not much left from all that. Greed for the win, eh? Sounds bad but that's exactly what's going on.
Sure, Warren Buffet IS in a better position to help than his cleaning lady theoretically. But the reason you gave for why he's morally obliged defeats your argument. You claim that the wealthy pay less tax than the rest of the country, but that's dead wrong (although it's true that tax rates on the rich are slowly falling). As of a couple years ago, the wealthiest 20% of Americans pay almost 70% of all taxes; the poorest 20% pay less than 1%.
THE RICH SHOULD JUST SIT AT THEIR BIG DESK COUNTING ALL THE MONEY FROM OTHERS SWEAT AND BLOOD LAUGHING HARDER AND FUCKING THOSE STUPID DUMB ASSES OVER WITH MONEY AND POWER .
I say no they do not have the obligation to. If other people wanted what they had they would learn to work harder. I am not a rich person and I would accept any donations from the rich but it does not mean they HAVE to help us. They worked hard for it or they got it from there parents or they just happened to be lucky enough to find a winning lottery ticket. I am a hard working person and it pays off.
In doing so within the framework of the original system they do nothing about the circumstances that produced the problem. The worst slaveholder was the one who treated his slaves kindly. There is no point in prolonging the misery of the poor therefore prolonging a system which creates such a gap between the rich and the poor.
In only voluntarily helping the poor they do not have my support. In addition to that they need to work towards a socialist handout to everyone that ensures no one is left at the mercy of another to fill their needs in light of the unjust system that would punish them for the act of stealing to fulfill their needs.
In the case I described stealing is necessary to protect life. If you propose otherwise you have not given the nature of rights very comprehensive thought as a libertarian. One of the most universal statements about rights is that stealing to protect life is fine because the right to life is stronger. Society needs to reflect that in order to reflect rights. What I propose you don't do is try to be "so dark so edgy" by making up your propositions about rights while reading Atlas Shrugged.
I cant believe I read this, but claiming theft as protecting life truly defines the ignorance of the socialist where it holds irrational logic and contortion of the libertarian philosophy.
The right to property defines as a mans inherent right to earn income where he chooses to save, invest or consume 100% of his earnings without theft. Man has the choice of starvation if not for charity.
The right to life is not monetary, but the right to the wellness of his body as well as to pursue his self interests.
I don't think thats quiet what he saying, but more, in the interest of staying alive through sustenance, theft is acceptable if no other option is available.
better to steal than to die.
I think thats what he means, otherwise I have no F@#kin' idea what he means.
It's a type of socialism but socialism is a very broad label. This sounds more like a type of collectivism.
Man has the choice of starvation if not for charity.
Yes, I believe we have established that your philosophy is totally bad-ass. Dark and edgy indeed.
contortion of the libertarian philosophy
In that case I only referred to the philosophy to poke fun.
Non-coercively acquired wealth is subject to the components of luck and merit. They define how much each individual can amass wealth and are the reasons why wealth gets distributed unequally.
Merit composes of genes, the environment and hard work. Only one of those is a decision and that decision is based on the other two components. Merit is luck. It is not a real decision so it is not moral in nature.
Consensuality does not answer the question: What to belongs to whom? Luck and merit are incorrect basis for justification of distribution. The only one that survives is: Wealth ought to distributed such that the poorest of society benefit the most.
Yes, I believe we have established that your philosophy is totally bad-ass. Dark and edgy indeed.
Wrong, man must work for his fruits of labor, not merely be entitled by breathing. Libertarian is not dark and edgy, it is light and soft. It would take care of those in need on voluntary basis. I enjoy giving to charities, just not forced.
man must work for his fruits of labor, not merely be entitled by breathing
That statement is outright incompatible with non-coercion. People will amass wealth with luck, even if you were to consider merit and hard work legitimate. Suppose someone inherits their fathers wealth and does not need to work a day in his life.
He is entitled by his very breathing just like a welfare recipient. Nothing he worked for. The man did not choose his father, but everything was provided for him.
Those who become wealthy just based on previous accumulated wealth is just as bad for those who receive public assistance. The only difference is the wealthy brat gets money that is private, which were more than likely earned by voluntary exchange from previous heir.
man must work for his fruits of labor, not merely be entitled by breathing
1. What you consider just is a person deserving of his needs by merit being provided with them.
Those who become wealthy just based on previous accumulated wealth is just as bad for those who receive public assistance.
2. What you consider unjust is a person undeserving of his needs by merit being provided with them.
We have already established luck can cause the scenario of the undeserving getting his needs, but luck can also have the opposite effect:
3. By extension you must consider unjust a person deserving of his needs by merit having his needs denied from him.
My system causes the first scenario (good) and the second scenario (bad), but avoids the third one (good).
Your system causes the first scenario (good), the second scenario (bad) and the third scenario (bad).
You are not right in defending your system with merit. You therefore need to provide another justification for this factor of luck or otherwise your system lacks a justification as a whole.
Also, you may prove that it is unjust to affect this factor of luck but in doing so you are not justifying the system itself. You are only make the system unjustifiable. I rest my case if you must consider luck a just basis for distribution to justify your system.
Actually, I clearly justified those born into a wealthy family can be justified despite great wealth but no merit. If the heir is entitled to the assets, it was voluntarily given to him compared to as someone on public assistance where it was forced by the threat of violence by the government. The use of force and violence to voluntarily is a clear justification for the luck of wealthy spoiled brats.
I clearly justified those born into a wealthy family can be justified despite great wealth but no merit.
How about the situation of the one who was denied of his basic needs by luck even though they belong to them by merit? I want to make sure we both understand that our justifications for distribution can't make use of merit. We do not propose or endorse a meritocracy.
The use of force and violence to voluntarily is a clear justification for the luck of wealthy spoiled brats.
We must define the parties that are using violence and force. Property which is not protected with violence is not property in any meaningful sense. Therefore the act of aggression has to be justified when a person claims special rights on an object. The same is equally true for the repossession of an object.
Consensuality between traders only justifies repossession and does not encompass the justification of the original claim for the object. When you go back far enough the object is not ultimately claimed from another person. The original claim can't be consensual in nature.
Rich people have no legal obligation to help the poor.
Actually, rich people are legally obligated to the help the poor as is everyone else, this is forced through taxation called Welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and etc.
A source for what? A source that say that all robbing a successful person of his earnings at gun point and giving it away to an un-successful person to win their vote is theft?
You love making debates really boring and dry don't you? Alright, here's the wikipedia definition:
In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
The IRS taking money that someone else earned and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is theft. Especially with income tax, property tax and paying for permits, all of these are mafia style tribute.
Perhaps if you actually read my response you would have seen that I said I do not need a definition for theft. Pay attention next time.
No, I do not need a source for the definition of theft. I provided you the definition and cited where I got it from, but since your unable to type theft into wikipedia I'll post a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
I see you didn't answer my question. Do you have a source?
I see you didn't read the definition, also see your not one for debating but just, just posting links to definitions.
No, I do not need a source for the definition of theft. I provided you the definition and cited where I got it from, but since your unable to type theft into wikipedia I'll post a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
Holy shit are you an idiot? lol. Look at what I wrote. I will quote it: No, I do not need a source for the definition of theft.
Maybe your reading skills need improvement.
I see you didn't read the definition, also see your not one for debating but just, just posting links to definitions.
I read the definition, even though I told you I did not need the definition if you go back to my original response and if you're suspicious that I changed it even look at what you quoted me as saying. I clearly wrote "I do NOT need a source for the definition of theft". I already know what theft means, the fact that you misread my statement 3 times is embarrassing on your part.
Again, you didn't answer me. I asked if you had a source for the following statement: The IRS taking money that someone else earned and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is theft.
Please take extra precaution in not embarrassing yourself a 4th time. Read carefully.
Holy shit are you an idiot? lol. Look at what I wrote. I will quote it: No, I do not need a source for the definition of theft.
Maybe your reading skills need improvement.
Seems as if your arguing skills need improvement.
Again, you didn't answer me. I asked if you had a source for the following statement: The IRS taking money that someone else earned and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is theft.
A source? Is that your idea of an argument, just posting links? Alright, let me give you a little lesson.
The IRS is the federal governments tax service, almost all of the money that the federal government has comes from the IRS. Now, the IRS uses the threat of force to take away property from the rightful owner, after this point it doesn't matter if the IRS gives it to the Orphanage for the Blind or the New Age Nazi Society, you have already taken property away from its rightful owner, therefore, it is theft.
Seems as if you're embarrassed by your less than elementary level reading skills. Misreading what I wrote 3 times, come on...
A source? Is that your idea of an argument, just posting links? Alright, let me give you a little lesson.
I'm beginning to think you're not so bright. I want to know if you have a source that the IRS is in fact taking property from the rightful owner? Prove to me that the IRS is taking people's property by force.
I don't need the definition of theft. Try remembering middle and high school, if you ever made it to those grade levels, perhaps it will help you read a little better.
I'm beginning to think you're not so bright. I want to know if you have a source that the IRS is in fact taking property from the rightful owner? Prove to me that the IRS is taking people's property by force.
I don't need the definition of theft. Try remembering middle and high school, if you ever made it to those grade levels, perhaps it will help you read a little better.
I'm beginning to think that your mind thinks in a rather linear and unintelligent way. Your asking for a source that proves that the IRS collects taxes with the threat of force?
here, read the first line. The IRS is responsible for collecting taxes and the interpretation and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code.
Now for the question of force, here, it talks about prosecution. You can be forcefully brought to court over not paying your taxes. I doubt I'll have to explain what can go on in court when your fighting a powerful, government organization in a corrupt legal system, but I'll just say "you can't fight city hall"
I thought you would provide something more sinister than simply collecting taxes. Collecting taxes is required for the government to operate and protect its people.
Perhaps some of the governments tax practices is a bit greedy.
I was never disagreeing with you in the first place, I only asked for a source and you made a scene because you misunderstood me.
I thought you would provide something more sinister than simply collecting taxes. Collecting taxes is required for the government to operate and protect its people.
Doesn't matter if its required, it is still theft. People can protect their selves, the only time they need a state for defense is when the people have been disarmed by the government have to cling to the tyrants that rule them for protecting from external threats.
Perhaps some of the governments tax practices is a bit greedy.
Its all greedy, spending someone elses money is never generous or benevolent.
I was never disagreeing with you in the first place, I only asked for a source and you made a scene because you misunderstood me.
I made a big scene because you seem to have a problem with using logic and common sense, not to sound like a prick, but it seems as if your ability think freely, interpret information or come up with new ideas is rather sub-par.
This implies that you belive all taxes to be theft, true?
Would you consider some of your taxes been used to pay for the older generation also theft?
Would you consider paying towards the next generation theft?
Do you think those injured in the line of duty should be cared for?
Should people who work for emergency services get any pay?
Should people pay any tax and if so which of your taxes contribute to theft however if you think all of it is theft then why live there if you don't use any of the services provided.
BTW rich and poor are simple caomparisons not absolutes
Actually, by nature and definition, all taxes are theft. However, I consider redistribution of wealth to be the most immoral use of taxes because you are essentially buying someone's support with someone else money, then claiming that you are generous and anyone who does not want to give up what is theirs to be greedy.
My Basic argument here is if you believe all tax is a form of theft then you imply that there of no services from which you benefit. If you don't benefit from any services supplied then why live there. You may as well move to a desert island.
To suggest that the most costs go to advertising and distribution is purely lacking of knowledge of business costs, the single biggest cost is labor, which is dictated by supply and demand.
In the domestic manufacture and business this is the case, but most products are manufactured where labour is cheapest.
You are probably correct that you get better value from purchases and services than you do from taxation. But I still believe that taxes are a necessary evil.
I know the market provides better services than government services. It happens everyday.
Labor is only a factor of production, not a sole condition. It only appears as the most contributing factor due to its diminishing marginal value product. Goods are cheapest provided at marginal units, not large scale.
You know what happens when people don't pay your taxes? The government comes to your house, kicks in your door and takes your property and drags you off to jail.
why would you hang about in the same area where you are been repeatedly robbed, waiting to be robbed again? that just sounds stupid.
I stay here in America because there are many others like me who share my views.
So I'm a statists I'm I?
Thats the problem with you anarchists you believe your entilted to all the benefits of a modern society but should bear none of the costs.
Thats the problem with all you statists, you think all benefits of modern society are impossible without government and that people who don't pay taxes are greedy. You fail to understand that if the state is your caretaker that the state is also your master, all of the things the government does with your money (and ineffecient workers who waster the money) the people can do ten times better without the government.
Not all redistribution of wealth implies rich people have a legal oblication to help the poor. You can still have redistribution by progressive tax that does not imply the poor get helped. The money could instead go toward the military for instance.
Not all redistribution of wealth implies rich people have a legal oblication to help the poor. You can still have redistribution by progressive tax that does not imply the poor get helped. The money could instead go toward the military for instance.
1. All progressive ta rates are unfair
2. I get what your saying about redistribution of wealth, but now a days it is usually referring to a mass welfare state.
People, even rich ones go to jail if they do not pay their taxes. Why else would they pay their taxes?
Do you understand how a percentage tax works?
Yes, usually those with more income pay more for the same thing. If you want equal treatment you would propose a monthly payment for your citizenship that is the same for all.
Yes, usually those with more income pay more for the same thing. If you want equal treatment you would propose a monthly payment for your citizenship that is the same for all.
I'm not proposing any tax system, I believe in no taxes and no government. However, if you are to have taxes I believe it needs to be a flat tax rate (on sale and consumption) and property and income tax should be done away with.
P.S, as much as I agree with your statement, the last sentence bugs me. True freedom of a nation is next to impossible. I'm free sure, but with limitations; speed limit, loan limit, finance limit, car limitations, voting limitation, who I want as politicians limitations, see the drift? No man or woman are truly free, only within our hearts and souls (if you feel there is a soul that is).
I say tax the upper percentages, especially that top 1 percent. Oh so they can't have 5 million cars and houses.
As you say, we are in America the "freedom" and "opportunity" and we're one of the richest nations. So in these lands of freedom we've got homeless druggies and middle income to lower poverty scraping by while the rich people have yachts and strippers (at least the corrupted politicians and authorities). Fuck morals, it's not right period.
No the rich are not obbliged to help the poor even though it would nice but they don't HAVE to but they can if they want, i mean hey put your self in their shoes they just risked their necks in stocks or raising a buisness, would you put your money on the line for some one who failed and dropped out of high school?
I'm not sure where this argument is going really but everyone on earth is probably richer than someone else on earth, somewhere. I pity the guy right at the very end of this series, incidentally - the poorest guy on earth, who, I suppose, everyone on earth should be helping then. But if this happens he is not likely to be the poorest for long. In fact, he is likely to get quite a bit of attention and could end up wealthier than all of us. Maybe this is Donald Trump's story.
As silly as all this sounds, it is probably happening to some extent right now - wealth trickles down following a gradient from rich to poor.
The rich does not need to help the poor for it is the responsibility of the government. If one works hard and is given an opportunity to have a living, then one is on his way to wealth as we know it.
Its back to the personal problem, every people have their each right to Help anyone, its about "right" , its about voluntary service not about obligation !!
Rich people do not have an obligation to help the poor as much as poor people do not have an obligation to revolution. There is no obligation to share wealth as much as there is no obligation to stay poor . The poor then have no obligation to support the wealthy by means of quiet compliance.
They actually said on the news NOT to give change to the homeless in NYC because it perpetuates the problem. Think it's the same thing on a larger scale for the U.S. society?
No, it is not their obligation. First of all, it is not their fault why these people are being poor. Maybe these rich people did something, to make themselves rich. They could help the poor, but that doesn't mean that they are obliged too. It is not anyone's obligation to help them, but it is their obligation to help themselves. I see people nowadays who keep on complaining that they are poor, even if they have not done anything to help themselves. Some people don't work and don't do something, that's why they stay poor. It is kind of silly, to always ask people to help you even if you, yourself, are not doing anything to help yourself. It is also right to share your blessings, but I believe that some people are also given a lot of opportunity to make their life more blissful. So, if you were given that chance, then use it, and stop asking other people to make your life better.