Are you aware of how many individuals are suffering from great poverty nowadays? Only in the US, one of the most developed countries of the world, 20% of the population is living under the line of poverty. Many people advocate for the fact that everybody should pay a small amount from their income in order to help the needy and helpless ones. However, others argue that this idea infringes upon individual liberty and, at the same time, does not help solve the root of the problem. In this essay, I will outline both viewpoints regarding this notion.
Those who support this view would agree on the proposition that sharing a tiny percentage of our salary to aid those in suffering could help alleviate their situation. To elaborate on this point, this money would be used to fund welfare programmes and to build new facilities such as soup kitchens or homeless shelters. Moreover, were the governments to implement progressive taxation systems so that those who are financially well-off have to pay higher taxes the situation would undoubtedly improve.
Notwithstanding, one of the commonest objections to this practice is that it limits our personal freedom and financial autonomy. Despite the fact that charity is an honorable activity, rooted on the moral principle of solidarity and social responsibility, opposers generally claim that no one should be obliged to donate part of their earnings, even if it is for a worthy cause. Another substantial downside of this idea is that it does not help tackle the underlying problem of poverty, but rather treats the symptoms. A more comprehensive approach to address this societal issue should involve not only providing immediate assistance but also investing in long-term solutions.
In conclusion, while some believe that allocating a small amount of our wages to aid the less fortunates is a positive idea, others claim that, although well-intentionally, it threatens our individual liberty. What is undeniably true is that some measures should be urgently taken in order to overcome this issue.