People work everyday from the time they are 16 until they are 60. Once they have retired, they deserve to have luxury and go on vacations. They have spent so much time making a living; once they can finally stop, they want to have fun with what is left of their lives. It would not be fair to make them give money away that they want to use for pleasure after so many years of working. Peter Singer believes that any extra money people have should be donated to people who are less fortunate; people can use their money for basic needs and give the rest away. Generally, Singer is incorrect in his belief; people should be able to choose what they do with the money that they have rightfully earned. People work extra hours and overtime for themselves …show more content…
According to The Atlantic, James Reynolds created organization claiming to be charities, mostly having to do with cancer. In reality, he “spent consumer donations on cars, trips, luxury cruises, college tuition, gym memberships, jet ski outings, sporting event and concert tickets, and dating site memberships.” Reynolds took advantage of people’s hearts and got them to donate money, which was used for his own luxury. If the money is going to be used for leisure, then it might as well be for the leisure of the person who earned the money. The possibility of people donating money to someone that is not going to use it for the less fortunate deters people from wanting to donate in the first place. With this added difficulty, people just decide that donating money is too much of a hassle. No one wants to search different charitable organizations to decide whom to give money to and determine if the money is going to a good cause or not. Money could be given away to people who do not deserve
If someone goes shopping and spends hundreds of dollars on items and don’t donate, that says something about who they are as a person. While shopping a constant reminder is right there. A sad, innocent, starving, child stares up begging for someone to help. While the shopper may be well-off or struggling to put groceries on the table for their family, they then realize that there is someone out there who has it much worse. Shoppers who may not be very eager to donate begin to see how ignoring this world problem makes reflects on them as a person.
1. I feel the typical bend of the circulation of riches ought to be similar to what the video said individuals surveyed ought to be. I feel these individuals who have these challenging tasks should get a great deal of pay. Maybe the facts may confirm that they are not working harder than the representatives under them, in any case, they likely worked a considerable measure harder to get to where they are. I feel just as salary increments exponentially when one 's position or level of notoriety increments.
Everyone should have a good life without worrying about how much money they make in a
Andrew Carnegie could have let his employees keep their wages and worry about donations later. Taking money away to invest it somewhere else is not helping, because the people
The ASPCA foundation could’ve had some information that showed the effect of people donating money. This would have enhanced the possibility of people donating money because they will actually know that they are helping. Also, they will know that their money is not going to waste. Even though the “Somewhere in America” commercial did have logos, it could have been better so that they could catch the audience’s attention and convince them to donate
People have their own problems and struggles to deal with. People could be a dollar richer if they didn’t donate. Also, why do charities exist?
As the school year comes to a close and the only thing on a senior’s mind is how are they going to pay for college? Throughout our high school careers we always get asked what our plans are after high school and never how are you going to pay for that next step of your life after high school. We barely get prepared for the real world in high school we are forced to take classes the school thinks will be good for us not what we think or what will be best for what we want to study for in college. How are high schoolers supposed to be able to pay for college when they don’t get prepared enough in high school to go on to that next level of schooling and have to more than likely go into debt just to be able to pay for it. Colleges should no longer cost an insane amount of money to go there.
In the article, “Minimum Wage Laws Are Immoral and Harmful”, it’s easy to identify that the issue is, should raising the minimum wage be abolished? As explained, it’s not essential for there to be a raise on minimum wage because many of whom insist for a higher wage do it because of moral beliefs. Those who ask for a higher wage tend to be the ones who like to rely on the governments assistance and do little to nothing to better themselves. This may even cause for employers to fire young and inexperienced employees whom don’t show value in the workplace so that those who show potential can keep their job. Raising the minimum wage would be the cause of the increase of the price on food, shelter, medication and clothes.
“Kids should be satisfied with the warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment.” Is this possible when being paid for good grades? When paid for good grades, students are no longer learning for a better future, but rather just for the reward of money. If the purpose of school is to educate, does the prize of cash take that away? From students feeling not needed pressure, to taking away the natural motivation to learn, to not remembering the material presented, students should not be paid for good grades.
Should kids be paid for chores? Do you get paid for your job, then why shouldn’t kids too? Your kids or future kids should be paid for their job. Do you want to be responsible for your child/future child’s struggle in life? Kids should be paid for chores because it helps them with life lessons, value, and last but not least it gives kids a better personality.
Students shouldn't have to pay for college, should they? No they shouldn't. Many smart kids who are more likely to succeed have little money and cannot afford college. More kids would go to college, also students would have more freedom to choose what they really wanted to do.
College students have a great amount of activities going on in their life: work, homework, exams, family, friends, and sports. Parents can help push their kid to be the best they are capable of being, sometimes everyone needs a push in life to get the wheels turning the right direction. Some college students are fortunate enough to get an academic scholarship or specific scholarships. Not all students are that fortunate enough to pay for the college experience. We know that college can be an expensive bill to pay, that is why parents may feel that they should help their child with the debts, but these parents should have the right to know what classes their children are taking because students may begin to not attend class, may be doing poorly, and they should not have to pay for their lack of work unknowing of their success.
Schools are just like jobs. The boss expects the workers to stay on task and do their work well. Teachers want students to work hard and also do their work with effort. If schools really want students to succeed, shouldn’t they be paid? Paying students motivate them to work hard to learn the criteria.
Take a man who is making $8.25 an hour per day; now pay him $50 an hour per day and in time, he will not be complaining about his job like the rest of us. Instead, he will
Do you ever think of why should or shouldn’t the rich people pay more tax than others? Nowadays, people are arguing about the fairness of paying more tax. Statistics have proven that the rich have paid the majority of U.S. income taxes. A person making $100,000 will pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes than a person making $20,000 for instance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes.