Amazon.com Widgets

Should the wealthy be required to give money to the poor to help end poverty locally?

  • One should be grateful for helping another

    The rich should be happy for helping the poor, to prove they have a loving heart. When the rich have surplus money they should be obliged to give to the poor. Robin Hood, a famous English outlaw had benefited many poor people's lives by stealing money from passing rich men and giving it to the poor, and he was happy for what he had done. Today, Robin Hood is considered as a hero.

  • If it was inherited by wealth and family

    People who are from a wealthy background do not necessarily earn it or deserve it , it is given to them by family. Poverty is also inherited by family, When will the time come when poverty can be ended and history doesn't repeat itself. Otherwise war and children will continue to starve

  • If they didn't earn it

    Many times the wealthy and rich do not deserve the money they have because they simply didn't earn it themselves. Nine times out of ten it was handed down to them by some family member or won in a contest or lottery. If they've earned it by hard work then they should be able to keep every penny but money passed down by a rich daddy should be shared.

  • Yes, spread the wealth.

    The wealthy can afford to donate much more money. Society is supposed to take care of those who are less fortunate, and when it comes to monetary issues, a lot of the responsibility falls onto the shoulders of the wealthy members. It is beneficial for all of society for the wealthy to help the poor.

  • It's all about choice!

    While I can agree for the rich to give some wealth to some extent they shouldn't be forced by gun to the head to give away. I believe in keeping what you earned. It's about choice for each individual. Is what I've said not fair enough to anyone rich or poor?

  • If they earned it, why shouldn't they keep it?

    Whilst I think that it would be a lot fairer for wealth to be spread between the rich and poor, I don't think that someone that's earned what they have should be forced to give it up for someone who never did. On the other side, however, I do understand that people who are rich have always had advantages over the poor - people who have rich parents tend to go to private schools, which in turn gets them to better unis (not to mention, they can afford to focus on their work rather than getting a job to pay for their education), which in turn get them a better job. In those cases, maybe they should. It also depends on your definition of 'local poverty'. I personally disagree with the poverty line, too. From it changing with the median wages, you're always going to have someone surviving on what they call poverty.

  • Should Do So Anyway

    The wealthy should give a portion of their income to help the needed anyway because that's the right thing to do, not because it is a legal requirement. No one should be forced to give up their income other than for mandated taxes as set forth by Congress. The wealthy should be able to keep or spend as much of their income as they desire since they have earned that money through hard work in the first place. It's not the fault of the wealthy that impoverished people don't get money because everyone should be trying to work as opposed to panhandling.

  • They Should be forced to make businesses for poverty locally

    Most people want to work for their money. The problem is there is a lot more people than jobs. Even if people would or could create their own jobs, they do not have the resources to do so. The rich people in this country have pretty much made it to hard for people on the bottom to do these things. The rich should be forced to make these businesses for people in poverty. It is not like that money, plus some would not make it's way back to them.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.