Do the Rich have a Responsbility to help the Poor?

The rich have a responsibility to help the poor.
Describe a specific situation in which the rich might not have a responsibility to help the poor. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the rich have a responsibility to help the poor.
___

During tough economic times, the problem of the widening income divide becomes more apparent. As the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, the United States will find face accompanying socio-economic implications. The poor will find themselves with even less resources and fewer opportunities to break into the middle class. They experience more disillusionment and are more likely to commit crimes. If the poor are left behind without any sort of help, society becomes more broken as a whole. It is arguable whether or not the rich have the moral responsibility to help the poor. However, they should help the poor, at least, to serve their own best interests. The US government recognizes the societal benefits of supporting the poor and thus, receives funds from the rich through its progressive taxation policies.

From a purely selfish point of view, the rich should support efforts to raise the poor's quality of life. There exists a direct link between crime and poverty; that is, those who are unemployed or who do not receive adequate education are more likely to commit crimes. When the rich support the schooling of poor youth, society becomes somewhat of a safer place for both rich and poor people alike. While rich people may not give money directly to the poor, the United States government enforces a policy that takes a higher proportion of funds from the rich to subsidize programs that benefit the poor, such as a public school system and welfare programs. When the poor are not given a hand to rise above their situation, most will continue on with the cycle of poverty and some will fall into a life of crime to make ends meet or because they do not know any better.

Undoubtedly, the rich control the industries of a nation and hire other people to help them make profits. While there remains a need for unskilled, minimum wage workers, the advances in technology and growing competition in the marketplace demands more of an educated workforce. If the rich continue contributing funds through taxes, they allow more people to advance professionally and help contribute to their businesses. With more effective workers who can think analytically, rich people can raise their profit margins and continue to develop businesses that keep up with a changing world.

However, government programs supporting the poor should be designed in a way to help people help themselves, so to speak. For example, direct handouts that allow people to have as many children they want and buy their groceries for an indefinite amount of time will create a culture of dependence. On the other hand, free education and work training will often help people become independent and achieve a sense of pride in their own accomplishments. The funds of the rich should not enable dependency on the government and the rich are in their every right to complain about programs that promote moral hazard. Especially in a time of growing scarcity and an uncontrolled deficit, the rich have the responsibility to take on the leadership to help determine where their funds could be best directed to nurture a more safe and productive nation.

In an ideal situation, the rich should feel the obligation to give back to society by helping the less fortunate. However, if they rose to their situation through honest, hard work, it is hard to tell them where their funds should go. If the rich want to be part of a working society, they need to respect government policies that keep the nation safe and able to compete in the world. This entails paying their fair share of taxes to fund programs that allow poor people to become independent and contribute to a healthy society.