Do rich Americans have the responsibility to help poor Americans?
Observing members:
1
Composing members:
0
30 Answers
Yes, of course. Responsibility, obligation, compassion, understanding of inequity, etc etc.
Along with wealth lies responsibilities. The wealthy will always be called upon for additional support for the country outside of the income tax scheme,
I think so.
The smart ones do so very easily. The celebrity athletes all set up charitable foundations where they get tax deductions while putting their names on the foundations.
Depends on where and how you draw several lines.
No. By definition “responsibility” is an obligation that was previously agreed upon or a duty you are obligated to perform. Neither of these is true. To suggest it is so is to embrace the Marxist ideal of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”. Complete crap. That ideal makes people work less and be less effective and makes people more dependent. Why should you work hard and do well for yourself if you are required to give it away to those that claim a need?
The other problem this brings up is the question of who gets to determine what is an appropriate need? Who decides what “rich” is? Is making $1M/yr rich? $100k/yr? What if you make $20k/yr but the crackhead next door only makes $10k…should you be required to support them?
The Christian in me would give to the poor if I were rich. Especially orphans and widows. I contribute now and I’m not rich. Sometimes it is with money or material goods, other times it is with physical help. But the difference between what I do and the question is that the requirement for me to help is totally up to me. @jca2 Mentions this sort of giving as well. Those who make tons of money do so willingly. But they do not have a responsibility to do so. I also have to wonder how many would continue to do so if there were no tax deductions associated with their efforts.
Responsible? No
Capable? Yes
Willing? Depends on their character.
I don’t think one has to be a Marxist to feel a moral responsibility to help people less fortunate than oneself. Nor does it necessarily have to be tax deductible.
The other problem this brings up is the question of who gets to determine what is an appropriate need? Who decides what “rich” is? Is making $1M/yr rich? $100k/yr? What if you make $20k/yr but the crackhead next door only makes $10k…should you be required to support them?
Excellent point. I’m not saying not to give, just that it would open up a whole new can of worms if people are obligated or have a responsibility. Our responsibility, if that’s what you want to call it, apparently extends to many other countries, often in place of Americans.
No
More of a moral debate rather than a yes or no answer though. I would say morally yes.
Depends on how you define responsibility.
Considering they are only rich because they profited off the work of the poor, yes.
Good answer the wealthy would argue that the poor had a choice they weren’t forced to work for dirt wages, yeah I guess they could just starve instead.
Right^?
Just finished a sociology course that talked a lot about the myth of the American dream.
Of course, the rich believe in it. I cannot remember the political candidate in the video, but they believe blood, sweat, and tears makes you successful in life.
I wish I remembered who he was. I am 100% positive that if I had googled him, it would say his parents were lawyers or some shit.
I believe the motivation and drive is important, but useless when you don’t have the means. You would think that is obvious. Apparently not.
At the end of the day, as it is now, legally that is their money. Even if gotten immorally.
It is sad how stupid being rich makes people.
Some of you seem to think that the poor are only poor because they work for dirt wages. Could it be that they dirt decisions with their lives? Could they have decided that getting rich meant dealing drugs? So they did that instead of getting an education and making something of themselves? And when they got busted and got a nasty record that excluded them from good jobs, is that still the responsibility of those that didn’t make those decisions? How about women that get pregnant so they can get more welfare? Should we be responsible for that decision? There are many decisions that could lead to working for dirt wages.
Your answers also assume that the wealthy were all just handed wealth. Some were. Others worked very hard to make their fortune. So the question becomes the same: why should they be punished by having to support those that don’t put for the effort because they have more need?
I don’t even disagree with you either. My answers specifically are addressing the rich who did not earn their money, but I could have made that clearer. Not saying you are calling me out, even if you are I don’t care, I am just saying.
This question made me kind of think more of people like Taylor Swift, who want to pretend they came from nothing, but that isn’t true. She releases 30+ variants of an album to get her in the charts and get her more money.
She is now a billionaire.
She did not earn that in the way she wants everyone to believe.
But seawulf you do bring up a good point, if they truly earned it then yeah, why should they be responsible? Some say there is no ethical millionaire/billionaire either way, though.
However, I will say that your other points are a different, deeper conversation.
Why are they choosing to sell drugs to make money? Was that really a “choice”? What were the alternatives?
If someone is feeling the need to do something as extreme as getting pregnant for government assistance, maybe there is something else to that? Something else going on?
Yeah, some people just do those things because fuck it. But those things are not glamorous, so how much of it is truly by “choice” and how much of it is because of perceived necessity (they think that way is the only way?)
And Taylor Swift has given millions away to her employees and other people. Not a good example. Now – Elon Musk….
Ironically, if anyone has any right to the claim “I earned it”, it is celebrities, like singers, actors, or sports figures.
Yeah, the Taylor thing is best brought up when I have the time to cite all the reasons why she is terrible.
Scooter Braun situation is not as bad as she states- she is just a money grubbing bitch. She gives pennies to her employees.
I don’t care enough to get that into it, however later I can write an essay if you so truly desire it. I am still shocked people support her.
Sorry, me neither. I wish people would truly look more into her, because she is NOT what she appears to be.
But, that is not the point of this post so sorry for getting off topic. In my mind she is the definition of an unethical billionaire
Everyone is on the same team. The poor look after the rich and the poor. The rich look after the poor and the rich.
The caveat is that the rules should be specified to everyone so none feel slighted.
If it is everyman for himself then it should be explained in grade school not to expect handouts.
I would have been an selfish asshole, growing up , and would have prepared to become a baron or warlord if I new that I was on my own.
This has taken an interesting turn. I don’t give a rat’s ass how the rich acquired their wealth, or if the poor are deemed worthy enough to receive help. @janbb made the point (which I am saddened was not immediately evident to all) that there is a moral responsibility, nay, a moral imperative to ease the burdens of those less fortunate. If your income from $5million well invested, keeps you comfy, donate some, alleviate some suffering. If you have earned that $5million, it s no less of a moral imperative to help than if you inherited it. If someone is poor because they have made mistakes or not, help them if you can.
Support things in your community, give the $10 bill to the pan handler on the corner (it’s fucking cold out there!), over tip the waitress at the diner, no matter how the service was, because she used up a lot of her savings surviving the pandemic.
What the hell kind of monster doesn’t help when they can?
And yes, this goes back to defining wealth, which is a massively fluid concept.
@seawulf575 There you go making wild arsed assumptions again just to get people going or to question other peoples opinions on the matter.
No, nature is kill or be killed.
However….the government has a responsibility to take their money.
@SergeantQueen I was not calling you out particularly because you were not the only one making some of the comments. And really I wasn’t calling anyone out. I was just identifying what seemed to be some assumptions being made. We, in this society, do that frequently…make assumptions about a couple of people and then apply it to a whole swath of society.
Taylor Swift is an interesting character. There are parts of her start that were helped by her parents (who were both in good paying careers). But the drive for music was all her. She started in country and moved it over to pop and has made many choices that made her a billionaire. I did see a thing the other day where a guy did a breakdown of 4 or 5 of her shows, looking at the songs from the perspective of variation in tonality (electronically evaluated) and it showed that basically she’s pulling a Milli Vanilli these days. 4 concerts and one promo all were the same song, recorded at the same time. Zero variation in lots and lots of key points. So I would say she got good support from her parents, but made it in the music business on her own but is now playing a game.
I tend to go a lot on my own experiences and my own observations over decades of life. I had the opportunity to try getting rich on selling drugs when I was young. It would have been a lot easier than working crap jobs, supporting myself and eventually going into the Navy. But that was the path I chose instead of the drugs. It is a path that can be chosen by just about anyone. So yeah, selling drugs is usually a choice as I see it. I could be wrong and there might be extenuating circumstances like gang influence and the like. But by and large I believe people turn to crime as an easier way to get by than actually working towards goals. It usually has more instant gratification but it isn’t a long game strategy.
And yes, I knew a girl that was my daughter’s age that got pregnant at 17 and her mom had her and the baby as part of the welfare check. When the girl turned 18, she went onto welfare herself because it was easier than working. And her mom pushed her to have more babies because they get paid more per child. They are just playing a system that is designed to keep them dependent and poor. The girl was a straight A student in H.S. and had gotten several grants to go to college yet she decided to stay on the welfare train. So to me, that is a choice as well.
My view is that life is a combination of what you are capable of doing and what you are willing to work for.
@Forever_Free Huh. Which “wild arsed assumptions” did I make? I was just adding to the conversation. And yes, in conversation if someone says something that makes you think of something else, it gets brought up. That’s really all I have done.
@canidmajor “A moral responsibility”? Whose morals? Who gets to decide? What is the definition of Rich? Who gets to decide that? If you are paying taxes and your taxes go to welfare, Section 8 housing, SNAP programs and the rest, aren’t you helping the poor whether you are rich or not…if you are merely employed?
I decide what my morals are, @seawulf575. My morals dictate that I help people less fortunate than myself. You have made it very clear, again and again, that your “morals” support actions and policies that don’t.
I did also think it was fairly universal in Judeo-Christian morality that there is an obligation to feed the hungry and clothe the needy. Perhaps that is not a part of Christian morality any more??
Answer this question 
