2015年11月15日托福独立写作范文：The more money people have, the more money they should give away to charity.
The popularity of technology widens the gap between the rich and the poor to some extent. In order to bridge the gap between them, many people suggest that it is reasonable to require the well-paid people, especially those who are wealthy, to donate money to the poor. However, as far as i am concerned, this practice is far away from being justified for the following two reasons.
First and foremost, demanding the better-off to give away more to the charity is likely to discourage the initiative of them. The willingness of people to be devoted to helping others is the key to philanthropy. If the willingness gradually decreases, hardly can the charitable institution be supported and exist. Since the wealthy earn their fortune by prodigious efforts, they are entitled to allocate their own income.
If they are compelled to act according to the claim, they are inclined to pay less effort to making money, along with which their wills to devote money may decline. Therefore, fewer funds can be raised to help the poor. In some extreme cases, the affluent may understate their fortune in order to shirk the heavy demand for donation, like what they have done to evade taxation.
To add more credibility, this practice tends to mislead the others not to donate to the people in needs. Due to the little existence of top earners, fund collected among the masses is another important source of charitable institution. However, after they are aware of the fact that the more property people possess, the more they give away to the needed, they are convinced that the responsibility of helping others is mostly transferred on the wealthy and their help is ignorable in front of the abundant fund other people have.
For those who are only self-sufficed, they are pleased to have others to shoulder the responsibility and thus reluctant to give away money. Therefore, the likelihood of economic support from them is likely to be greatly reduced.
Admittedly, the able should assume more responsibilities because they can accomplish what others cannot accomplish. Likewise, the wealthy are supposed to give away more money to the charity for only part of their fortune can ensure the survival of many others. However, charity is based on people’s good will rather than their sense of responsibility. Therefore, it cannot be set as a mandatory policy but a rational advice and encouragement.
Nowadays, people have a better life becausethey have earned more and more money. After using money to meet the basic liferequirement, people are confronted with a question that if they should use themoney to charity. Many people think it is necessary that people with more moneyshould donate more to charity. However, in my opinion, I disagree with theidea.
To begin with, everyone has his right to spendtheir money. In the world, everyone is equal from birth. Hence, everyone canspend his money in freedom rather than donating to charity compulsorily. Manyrich people use more money to meet their satisfaction such as luxury bags,cars, watches, big houses and so on. Maybe they just want to use their money toenjoy a good life but not to donate to charity. Also, the government cannot makelaws to compulsorily require rich people to give away more money to charity. Ifthe government makes such laws, it is likely that rich people become poorbecause of charity. It is ridiculous. As a result, maybe no one wants to makemoney to become rich because of donating a lot of money to charity.
Moreover, people with more money can investother social programs, such as environmental projects or public transportation.Donating to charity may just help some poor guys to improve their lives.However, investing other social programs can benefit more people. Specifically,the more money are used in environmental projects, the environment can becomebetter. People can breathe fresh air and drink clean water so that becomehealthier. In addition, the more programs also provide more jobs for people.More poor guys can get jobs to earn money to improve lives. As a consequence, usingmoney to invest social programs can help more people than donating to charity.
From what I have discussed above, we cansafely draw a conclusion that it is not necessary that people with more moneyshould donate more to charity. First, everyone has free right to spend money.In addition, people can use money to invest many beneficial programs ratherthan to charity.
Money is what makes the world go round, they say, but that is only true if you have it. The suggestion that people who have more money ought to give more to charity just makes sense to most; however, I think the rich should not have to part with their hardly earned cash.
In the first place, they should spend it on art. Creating a moral code that compels the rich to pour their money down the bottomless rat-hole of charitable causes will diminish investment in culture, the lasting legacy of any civilization. Take Bill & Melinda Posterns, along with their friend Warren Pummel, for example. They are reputedly the three most “generous” philanthropists in the world, but the 40 billion dollar endowment of their foundation is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed to alleviate hunger, malaria, AIDS, and malnutrition. If they had spent their money on art, they could have bought 40 museums with better collections than the Detroit Institute of Arts. Imagine that!
Second, they should spend it on expensive educations for their children. It is unnatural to ask somebody to spend their money on people they don’t even know. For instance, if a man can spend a million dollars on sending his two children to engineering school or a million dollars on digging wells for people with no drinking water, he should spend it on his children who might someday invent a way to dig wells for half the cost. Furthermore, those children might be able to get more rich themselves from the royalties on their new patents.
Finally, if people who earn more money store up their treasure, but spend less on the poor and relief work, it will eventually lead to the semi-revolution that we need. The late poet laureate Robert Frost astutely observed that we need a semi-revolution, because the trouble with a total revolution is that it brings the same class up on top. Keeping riches out of the hands of those who manufacture their luxury goods for them will soon lead to a necessary revolt.
You might think the richer somebody gets, the more money they should give away to charity, but these are three strong reasons for letting the rich spend their money on other things or just to keep it in their pockets. (386 words or so)