Poverty or Luxury? What's more important?
Debate Rounds (2)
what is that Luxury? Is it buying issue or unnecessary waste of money?
A lot of wealthy people spend money for nothing, buying luxury goods, expensive cars and big houses, do trips around the World, or around the space. Sometimes they don't pay taxes and break the law.
Poor people are everywhere. They need in food, water and in shelter. They don't have work, money for supporting themselves.
People, who are wealthy, they can help them. They can give them a job, food and water, opportunities for living in a good conditions instead of buying unnecessary and luxury things. In conclusion as I am against waste of money by wealthy people and buying unnecessary luxury goods, I want to persuade RICH people help poor nations, reduce the poverty around the World, because they really suffer from that, and have incurable illnesses and as the life stories and information show they die.
Luxury spending is EXTREMELY important. The circulation of wealth will help people in the long run. The rich person buys a ferari that is made in Italy by factory workers who get the parts from the car from China and other factories which have more factory workers. If the rich people do not buy this ferarri, all the factory workers do not work. Now, if the rich man buys two ferarris, the factories have to hire more workers to meet the new demand. The new workers were most likely previously unemployed. This helps with poverty. (Of course, the numbers are not real, but you can get the gist). Thus, the more the rich spends, the more jobs the rich create.
However, there is an issue I have with rich people. NOT spending. When the rich just hoards the money, no one gets work, no one gets money.
In conclusion, being wealthy and spending money on yourself is good for everyone. Not spending the money at all is selfish.
You said that if wealthy people will hoard their money, there is won't be any workplaces, BUT again, I am against of waste of money for nothing, I mean trip to the space, but not for hoard their own money. If they are really wealthy and some of them are may be kind people , they can create a charity and that compassionate programmes can promote them, increse number of investors and develop their business.
I will begin by saying this, if wealthy people spend a lot of their money on schools in poor countries, it is still not enough. It just isn't. However, back to my factory point, look at China. They were not altogether developed until industries started moving to them. Their populace was not educated much but that came AFTER industrialization. Now look at them. Thus, the first step to educating a populace is increasing industry. The first step to increasing industry is increasing the demand for industry. The demand for industry can be replaced by people buying manufactured goods and yes, crap they don't really need. If we, as society, have the rich live less extravagant lives and start giving the money, that they WORK for, to other countries to help with poverty, we will lose industry. Yes, a few people will get educated by doing just what you say, however, increasing the industry will boost the overall foundation for education of even the poorest country.
Do not think, however, that I do not support charitable giving. I think people should, not because they feel obligated to, because they can and the WANT to.
Also, I was not thinking that you were implying that you wanted the people to hoard their money. I understood your point, I was simply reiterating that spending and not giving is better than not spending and not giving and that spending should be encouraged overall.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.