Some people believe that affluents must bear responsibility for supporting lower class, while others think that wealthy do not have any responsibilities for helping the poor people. I fully agree with the second viewpoint.
On the one hand, the first group might be right to some extent. Firstly, they claim that rich people should support needy people due to moral standpoint. IT means that rich people accumulate wealth due to favorable circumstance such as family support, and social connection, so their wealth is collective resource, and they should redistribute their wealth, thereby, creating a balanced society. Secondly, they point out that philanthropy and charitable donations not only reduce poverty level but also improve social stability since poverty result in social unrest. That is to say, financial support can reduce health disparity and lack of education, leading to long- term economic prosperity
On the other hand, I support the second group who believe that wealthy have freedom whether to help poor people or not. Firstly, they justifiably contend that there should be no obligation to help the poor people because it undermines personal freedom and free market principles. To be precise, in capitalist society wealth result of hardworking, individual talent, and risk taking; hence, they should have this right to enjoy fruits of their labor. Secondly, they rightfully assert that charitable activity will increase independency, thereby solving root causes of poverty can be more beneficial. To do so, not only should government create job opportunities but also provide free access to education for everyone, which empowers poor people to generate income and break the poverty cycle.
In conclusion, rich people have a moral duty to help needy people. However, in my opinion, there in no obligation to help poor people.