More than 1.2 billion people- one in every five on earth- survive on less than a dollar a day (Facts on Poverty). Peter Singer’s solution to poverty issue in the United States claims that all of the wealthier class should donate their excess and/or luxury money to those in need, the poor. The upper class of American citizens feel obligated to donate to those that are less fortunate than them, “America’s super wealthy are being hit up hard for their money on two fronts this year — for charity and for higher taxes”(Warren Buffet). Due to Peter Singer’s argument, billionaires around the country are starting to donate a percentage of their income to charities, organizations, and the those who are in need. In return, the billionaires receive tax
…show more content…
Poverty is a social evil that shows the corruption of the United States’ government policies and internal conflicts. This is a issue that the United States should be raising concerns about because millions of American citizens in our nation are struggling with this critical issue of poverty every day for their entire lives. By reading my argument, it will draw attention to this global issue and shine a light on the importance of knowledge relating to poverty. Gradually, poverty can be solved throughout each country in the world, if done correctly.
Although many people could agree with Peter Singer’s solution to poverty, there are several flaws in his plan. By having the wealthy donate their excess/luxury money to the impoverished, this could help decrease poverty around the world. On the other hand, poverty has already declined significantly over the years in several different areas around the world. This could be due to the generosity of the rich, or it could be due to the government. In addition to this population decline of people in poverty, more money donations from the wealthier communities alone will not solve the poverty issue in the United States. Due to the lack of donations from the upper class, …show more content…
There is no way for donors to track down where and what their money is being spent on. There are many honest people, but there is no way of telling if our money is being wasted or not. Another issue is the work ethic of our society, “ It is difficult to imagine individuals doing well in life without a decent amount of effort and work. Even for those born into wealth, hard work and motivation are generally required for reaching one’s goals. And for those starting with much less, hard work and initiative would appear to be essential” (Confronting Poverty). Although donating money will help the poor have a better life this would not be fair, the wealthy has spent time and hard work to earn the money they receive. If we took away the wealthy’s money and gave it to the poor the work ethic of the impoverished would disappear. Clearly, without the right mindset, they will not know how to maintain their well working habits. “The even darker side to this cultural phenomenon is how the sense of entitlement has spilled over into a lack of responsibility” (Warshauer). People now feel entitled to certain luxuries, like money, without working. Therefore, Peter Singer’s solution is defective due to the incapability of supervising where the donors money is invested towards. Even though Peter Singer states, “At its core, the Giving Pledge is about asking wealthy families to have important conversations about their
Poverty is a social evil that shows the corruption of the United States’ government policies and internal conflicts. This is a issue that the United States should be raising concerns about because millions of American citizens in our nation are struggling with this critical issue of poverty every day for their entire lives. By reading my argument, it will draw attention to this global issue and shine a light on the importance of knowledge relating to poverty. Gradually, poverty can be solved throughout each country in the world, if done correctly.
Although many people could agree with Peter Singer’s solution to poverty, there are several flaws in his plan. By having the wealthy donate their excess/luxury money to the impoverished, this could help decrease poverty around the world. On the other hand, poverty has already declined significantly over the years in several different areas around the world. This could be due to the generosity of the rich, or it could be due to the government. In addition to this population decline of people in poverty, more money donations from the wealthier communities alone will not solve the poverty issue in the United States. Due to the lack of donations from the upper class, …show more content…
There is no way for donors to track down where and what their money is being spent on. There are many honest people, but there is no way of telling if our money is being wasted or not. Another issue is the work ethic of our society, “ It is difficult to imagine individuals doing well in life without a decent amount of effort and work. Even for those born into wealth, hard work and motivation are generally required for reaching one’s goals. And for those starting with much less, hard work and initiative would appear to be essential” (Confronting Poverty). Although donating money will help the poor have a better life this would not be fair, the wealthy has spent time and hard work to earn the money they receive. If we took away the wealthy’s money and gave it to the poor the work ethic of the impoverished would disappear. Clearly, without the right mindset, they will not know how to maintain their well working habits. “The even darker side to this cultural phenomenon is how the sense of entitlement has spilled over into a lack of responsibility” (Warshauer). People now feel entitled to certain luxuries, like money, without working. Therefore, Peter Singer’s solution is defective due to the incapability of supervising where the donors money is invested towards. Even though Peter Singer states, “At its core, the Giving Pledge is about asking wealthy families to have important conversations about their