CreateDebate


Debate Info

43
76
Yes No
Debate Score:119
Arguments:95
Total Votes:134
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (37)
 
 No (57)

Debate Creator

Kovaleva(55) pic



Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?

Yes

Side Score: 43
VS.

No

Side Score: 76
2 points

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.

Side: Yes
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: No
Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
2 points

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.......

Side: Yes
1 point

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

Side: Yes
1 point

Rich people have the obligation to help poor.

I don't earn enough money to bennefit from the lower tax rates that someone whos income is ten times that of mine.

Yet I earn too much to not pay tax or even low tax.

If the middle has to pay the highest taxes then the least the rich can do is help the poor

Side: Yes

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.

Side: Yes

Everyone has a moral obligation to help those that need help, that could be helped, that are in a worse position than yourself.

If you can end anothers suffering with very little loss or effort on your own part, how can you call yourself a good person if you do not?

Side: Yes

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.

Side: Yes

Morally? No. Practically? Of course.

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.

Side: Yes
1 point

I think rich people should help poor people.They will not loose anything if they will spend money for charity

Side: Yes
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
1 point

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.

Side: Yes

I believe there is always an obligation for people to help those they can, but that does not mean that they HAVE to. it's a personal, moral choice.

Side: Yes
rollership(5) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No
5 points

No, the rich do not have the responsibility to help the poor, but if they want to manage the problem and prevent riots, they will help the poor.

Side: No
2 points

If they want to manage the problem and prevent riots, they will help the poor.

This is the reality.

Side: No

No, the rich do not have the responsibility to help the poor, but if they want to manage the problem and prevent riots, they will help the poor.

^^^That.

Side: No

No, rich people don't have the obligation of helping the poor, is it moral right, maybe.

The only way to help the poor is free markets, yet extreme hatred of free markets is spreading.

Side: No
modorichie(152) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
1 point

The poor get help because it benefits big government.

It is impossible to balance free markets with welfare because any government intervention is not free market, then it is a regulated market.

Side: No
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

Yeah I'm pretty sure that allowing wage slavery and disallowing people basic rights if they can't afford them will make them happier.

Side: Yes
1 point

This a joke, right. Slavery was not the byproduct of the free market or free peopke. It was the edict of government law.

Side: No
2 points

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.

Side: No
modorichie(152) Disputed
1 point

I hate disputing this because I don't totaly disagree with you.

But as they pay less tax than the rest of us morally they should be obliged.

If Warren Buffet pays less tax than his cleaning lady, well then surely he's in a better position to help them then she is.

Side: Yes
Emperor(1348) Disputed
1 point

Less tax?

You mean a smaller tax percentage.

If he pays 5% of 100000000

and she pays 15% of 100000, then that 15% is a LOT less money, despite it being a higher percentage.

However, I still don't really support that. Rich people can afford to pay more, and so perhaps they should.

But eh, I don't really like taxes at all.

Side: No
Revolt(201) Disputed
1 point

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%.

Side: No
2 points

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 .

Side: No
2 points

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.

Side: No

They are not obligated to help the poor, however, if they choose to voluntarily help the poor they have my support.

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
1 point

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.

Side: No

Rich people have no legal obligation to help the poor.

Morally speaking, the rich may be obligated to help the poor, but that is on their conscious.

If we force them to help the poor, how are they truly free?

Side: No
2 points

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.

Side: No
GuitaristDog(2548) Clarified
1 point

Rich people have no legal obligation to help the poor.

Currently they do, its called redistribution of wealth, or as anyone who understand what it is would call it, theft.

Side: Yes
2 points

Currently they do, its called redistribution of wealth, or as anyone who understand what it is would call it, theft.

Do you have a source?

Side: No
1 point

redistribution of wealth

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.

Side: Yes
Lynaldea(1231) Disputed
1 point

Yeah Mark, fuck it, Chaos!!!!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -

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.

Side: Yes
2 points

Fuck morals, it's not right

Lol.

Side: Yes
1 point

Their not obligated, but still it's a good thing to do.

Its unfair that someone has it all, and someone doesn't have anything.

Side: No

No..., Poor people should Thank God (not the rich) for what you have and, TRUST GOD (not the rich) for what you need ;)

Side: No
1 point

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?

Side: No
1 point

They already give them jobs isn't that enough?

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: No

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.

Side: No
1 point

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 !!

im really proud to oppose

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: No
1 point

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?

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: No

But they would feel so good inside if they did help the poor.

Side: No