Everyone in the rich world should give away 10% of their earnings
We all applaud when very rich people pledge to give away most of their billions, but they are usually left with millions to pass on, still much more than most people would expect to earn in their lifetime. It seems obvious that these very rich people don’t need all of their wealth so should give it away, but should everyone in the west give away 10% of what they earn? Even comparatively moderate salaries in the west are very high when compared globally. Someone on £20,000 could easily afford to give away £2,000 per year and still have plenty to live and some luxuries. Obviously the very poorest, those who find it difficult to make ends meet, should not have to give away their money but most have a little that could be given away. Should everyone give away 10%?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
There is too great a divide between the poor and the rich
Individuals in the western world earn significantly more than other areas of the world and they should be partially responsible for ensuring a high quality of life for the less fortunate.
The rich/poor divide is greatest among wealthier countries [[(http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44381)]] and there is already a hefty tax system in place so that the wealthy are helping the less wealthy. If they were then to contribute to other countries it would discourage able individuals to work as they would be able to claim benefits and maintain a good quality of life with little to no effort. There is also the danger of the middle class bearing most of the taxes/contributions. Instead there should be a much higher threshold for what is considered "high earning" or there should be a cap on how much an individual can be paid.
People should not have to give away money that they have worked for
The majority of people word hard for their earnings and it is a relatively small proportion that enjoy a celebrity lifestyle. Individuals already have to give away a substantial amount of their earnings that they would be discouraged to work if such a law was made. Someone just below the tax threshold can also 'acquire' a lot more by not working than someone working hard in a low paid job just above the threshold. More practical solutions would be placing a cap on salaries and bonuses allowed for different job areas and raising the minimum wage. Then people will not have to directly 'pay out of their pocket' and there would be less resentment. Sadly there is always going to be some less well off than others as that is how societies function but by reducing the gap between the poor and the rich a higher standard of living can be achieved.
If by the 'rich' world you mean oil-rich Arabs and the world's highest paid celebrities; then the argument on the right is void.
Frankly, there is no such thing as the "rich world".
As such a term does not exist; I think it is fair to interpret it as the "rich people of the world".
Well, it does exist in these three articles and "Three decades ago, the people in well-to-do countries were 30 times better off than those in countries where the poorest 20 percent of the world's people live. By 1998, this gap had widened to 82 times"
It's a country to country comparison not a comparison of the world's richest against the world's poorest. In poor countries salaries for the same hard work are considerably lower therefore it is the duty of those present in the rich world to compensate for their extra cash. [[http://www.cgdev.org/section/rwpw/]]
The definition of "wealth" of individuals in a country is difficult to asses on the basis of "average income" possibly a more relevant measure would be "median income". The contribution of "rich countries " to poor countries could only be justified if the very richest in the poor countries were contributing to significant amount of their income to the poor.
Half of the ten richest people in the world are citizens of poor countries
The world's richest man Carlos Slim H is from Mexico. [[http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Carlos-Slim-Helu-family_WYDJ.html]] number 4 and 5 on the list are Indian
#8 Eike Batista is from Brazil, #9 Amancio Ortega is from Spain.
But the wealth, as pointed out earlier 'is' in the rich world. Where do these people keep and spend their money? in poor countries? No.
It should be personal choice whether you want to help the poor or not.
I don't think it should be law to give away money that you've worked for. Especially if you don't know the people that it's going to help. The people it's going to help could end up spending it on something stupid themselves like drugs or something.. People work hard to get money... It should be personal choice whether you want to help the poor.
No, I don't think that this is very fair to the rich people because, those people that are rich have worked extremely hard to earn that money. The rich people probably got a very good job because of their hard work in school, and then they have done their job to earn the money. i think that the money that people own, should be the money that people keep because it is not fair that you have to give away your money just because other people are poor.
Sure it is a sad thing that people don't have homes and are not able to afford food, but people can donate things to help them out. There are a lot of caring people out there in our world, and I think that people should keep the money that they have worked hard to earn, and are well deserved of.
I think that it should be a choice of whether the rich people want to help out the poor people in giving them some basic things. If the rich people choose not to help the poor people then that should be alright because it’s not the poor people’s money to decide what they want to do with the rich people money. The rich people should be able to decide what they want to do with their money themselves.
If every rich person gave away 10% to charity, they would still remain the richest the difference between the richest, second richest and so on and so forth, would remain the same. They don't need billions which they are never going to use in their life time. They should donate to less fortunate people who don't even know when they are going to get their next meal.
What do you think?