Should the rich be obligated to give a certain amount to charity?
Should people who make more than a certain amount of money be obligated to give certain amounts of their income to charity? For example let's say that people who make more than $250,000 a year should be obligated to give to charity. Would you support this or not?
Yep
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Nope
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
Lets say there is a fire somewhere, you see the fire and realize you need to put out the fire before it spreads out of control. Next to you are two bodies of water: a puddle and a lake. You have a bucket you will fill with water, which source of water would be the more logical choice here? The lake. Because it has a larger amount of water than the puddle, therefore you can put out the fire easier that way, and the lake will most likely have not be significantly been reduced, if you use the puddle it will most likely run out quickly and you will not put out the fire. Side: Yep
1
point
The US has one of the most measly, miserable foreign aid programs. The resources to participate are there, they're just going towards "defense" and tax cuts for the rich. Even at the national level, there are charities which pay back their operating costs to society many times over. Trickle down economics does not. Unicef reports that around 15 million children die every year of conditions that are easily treatable. If we do not force the rich to contribute to charity, we're effectively insulting their integrity and destroying the lives of millions of people. Side: Yep
|
2
points
1
point
I don't think that the rich are obligated to give to charity, the money that they possess belongs to them, therefore I feel and agree that they should be allowed to do with it whatever they choose. I do however think that our society should be geared towards making sure their isn't too big of a gap between classes if a capitalistic society to ever work. I think that the rich has significant political power with society, and it is that reason alone I think gaps between classes should be regulated. Also it is just the case that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, it costs money to make money, and the more money you have, the faster you can increase your riches, and the more poverty becomes a problem. Side: Nope
1
point
Also it is just the case that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, it costs money to make money, and the more money you have, the faster you can increase your riches, and the more poverty becomes a problem. You see growing up in a wealthy family I have been told that the rich deserve to stay rich. I have asked why many times. I always get the reply that this is the "natural order" of society. I have no clue what to think. Side: Nope
The natural order of society not really to say. If you know your history the rich of the revolutionary war the colonist that was wealthy in other words social elites risk everything they own to stand what they believe in as rights and all that. Now its always the same companies fighting against companies. There is no real order in the society that I have known of. Side: Yep
1
point
You see growing up in a wealthy family I have been told that the rich deserve to stay rich. I have asked why many times. I always get the reply that this is the "natural order" of society. Interesting... Well I agree and don't agree at the same time. Their might be a context behind this that I don't understand. Is this in relation to family lines or just immediate families? I do think if person Y has contributed more to society than person X, then person Y should be more rewarded by society than person X, and that is natural. However, the rich haven't always earned what they got, and that isn't their fault, if I inherited a huge sum of money for being related to someone there would be no way I'd give it up, but I see that as an issue for our society. Money that gets passed down generation to generation to generation, for significant periods of time withholds that money from going through society meaning poverty have less money out there for them to earn. Of course you could argue that it is those rich families that create jobs since they typically invest into businesses and what not, however the case still is, is those families still hold a majority of that money decreasing everyone else's chances of getting anywhere and their is a huge gaps between the economic classes. So while I don't believe charity should be demanded, society geared toward wealth distribution so their aren't to big of gaps. I have no clue what to think. Research, ubiasly as you possibly can, don't extrapolate from your family nor me, but you probably already know that, and come to your own conclusion. Edit* here is my link to back me up on the economic class gaps: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/ It's a long read, so I'm just going to quote it in case anyone wants the specific information I am using from it. "In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth" The information is a bit outdate by a few years but I can't imagine things have changed much drastically. Side: Nope
1
point
I can't speak for the whole "natural order of things", but the issue isn't really whether someone deserves their station in life, it's about whether a person has the right to keep what is theirs. Upholding the principle of property rights has done more for humanity in the last 200 years than all the charity of all the centuries combined. Side: Nope
1
point
|
