Social structures have existed in parallel to human civilization. In said structures, civilization has
allowed opportunities for certain individuals to have access to opportunities conducive to advancement in
the social hierarchy. These opportunities are they 'keys' to the 'doors' of success; the end product of this
advancement is an overall richness, be it superficial or not. However, reaching this status comes with a price;
to be at the top rung of the social ladder comes the responsibility of helping those on the lower rungs.
Responsibility in itself is a duty and for one to not fulfill a duty would be amoral. In its purest essence,
the rich have the duty to help those beneath them in an economic sense, ergo, the poor. This 'poorness' when a
result of external factors beyond the control of the affected should be looked after by those who aren't
affected, the rich. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, it fell upon the 'rich', segments of society not
affected by the hurricane, to give aid to the people of New Orleans. The victims were in position whatsoever to
better the situations for themselves, as all their livelihoods were either destroyed or damaged. The duty of
restoring the quality of life the victims had before the disaster fell upon those not affected and is justified
in such a situation. Not fulfilling this duty would have been amoral and, therefore, helping the poor was a
responsibility of the rich.
However, situations arise when the poor had complete autonomy over the circumstances in which they
became poor. Imagine a situation where an individual wins a large amount of money in the lottery by chance;
at this point, the individual has complete control over where and how the money should be invested. When and
if the individual in question chooses a lifestyle of gambling and manages to lose all of the winnings, should the
rich help the said poor? No; the outcome was a choice made by a competent being with full control over when and
where the money should be spent. The end result is a consequence of irresponsibility and when in such a situation,
where the individual moves back to being 'poor' by mere virtue of choice, then the rich don't have a
responsibility to help the poor.
With great power, comes great responsibility. Power can exist in an infinite number of ways
but the common denominator with such a status in social hierarchy comes the duty of giving aid to those
in lower statuses, and in effect, the rich have a responsibility to help the poor. The line must be drawn
however, when the poor become 'poor' due to mere virtue of their own choosing; if they are completely competent
and autonomous beings and have full control over their actions and still end up being poor because of their choices,
then the rich don't have a responsibility to help the poor. If being poor is an outcome of external factors
beyond control of the victims, then the rich have a duty to help the poor.

Economic classes have split society into the rich, the middle class, and the poor. It is often believed that the only way to bridge the gap between the wealthy and the poor is to ensure that the wealthy people take care of the poor people. In 2010 when the United States President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, this was an instance where the rich people had to take care of the poorer people. Among other things, such as increasing Medicare aid and ensuring that patients with medical histories otain health insurance, the bill requires an increased "health" tax for people who are in the higher tax brackets (wealthy people). This essential takes money from the wealthy people that can be used to generate health services for the poorer people who can not afford it.

While the rich generally take care of the poor, it is not always the responsibility of the rich to do this. In professional sporting leagues there are wealthy teams and there are poor teams. In the National Hockey League (NHL), the richest team is the Toronto Maple Leafs (estimated net worth of 480 million dollars in 2009 according to Forbes Magazine) and the poorest team is the Phoenix Coyotes, who in 2010 recently filed for bankruptcy. It is not the Toronto Maple Leaf's responsibility to help ensure that the Phoenix Coyotes stay financial stable and continue to have an NHL team. While ensuring the Phoenix stays in the league may be beneficial to Toronto, as it prevents another possible franchise from opening in southern Ontario, It is not possible for Toronto to help Phoenix financially as it would then effect the Toronto team financially. It is the responsibility of the Phoenix Coyotes to either aquire the finances to successfully run the team or else forfeit the NHL franchise.

When is it then, the responsibility of the wealthy to ensure the stability of the poor? The determining factor depends on if the situation is concerning a basic necessity item. Health care is a necessity and it is the primary responsibility of the wealthy people to help with the financial aspect of paying for the health care programs for the poorer people. If the situation isn't a basic necessity, such as owning a professional sports franchise, then it is not the responsibility of the wealthy to help the poor.

Score: 2.5/6

-Your opening 2 sentences are very convoluted, which detracts from the essay.
-Your supporting paragraph is good.
-It is difficult to argue that the rich do not have a responsibility for those who made bad life choices and were subsequently reduced to poverty. It is difficult because society does provide for these individuals. So, although I see the point you are trying to make, it is a very hard sell to go against what clearly occurs in the real world. Further, because you only present a hypothetical example, the reader is left to compare his/her own perceptions against your hypothetical example. In this case, your example looses because I know that society supports all poor individuals regardless of how they became poor.
-Your resolution is appropriate, given the arguments you chose to argue.

Score: 4/6

-The entire essay is good. You use good examples and you have a good resolution principle.
-What will allow you to move from a 4 to a 5 is saying your arguments in a more concise way and explicitly relating them back to your argument.

Nintey-nine percent of the money on earth is owned by less then one percent of the public. Such an uneven distribution of wealth suggests that those who have everything should share it with those who have little. A person is generally defined as rich, when they have an excess of money, beyond what is required to live comfertably. It is often suggested that the rich have a responcibility to share their money with the poor. Bill Gates is well known as the richest man in the world. It is less known, however, that he also happens to donate more money each year to charitable organizations, then any other person alive. As a rich man he sees it is his duty to provide these organizations with funds in hopes of raising the standard of living for as many people as possible.

Sometimes however the donation of money from rich to poor is of little or no use. Food stamps are handed out in the United States to low income families. The reason for this is many people on welfare are that way because of addictions to drugs. Food stamps have little value to those selling drugs and therefor cannot be used for anything other than food. If a rich person wished to help a poverty stricken citizen, giving them money that might be spent on drugs is therefor counterproductive and should be avoid.

If the rich have a responcibily to look after those with no money, then careful concideration on how to donate their money should be considered. A wealthy person should donate to organizations with goals to help poor people improve their situations, such as soup kitchens and rehab facilities. As opposed to personally giving out donations to individuals. This way donator can be assured that their donation will go a long way to helping many people and will not be waisted.

Score: 3.5/6

-Your supporting example is a little weak because you haven't demonstrated very well that Bill Gates has a responsibility, maybe he just likes donating money. Examples are better when they are concrete so that there is no interpretation left up to the reader.
-Your refuting example is good, however after you state the example relate it back to your argument about responsibility.
-OK resolution principle.

Ingrained in most people, is either a desire or feeling of obligation to help others in a less fortunate situation. Society in general, has seemed to adopt the view that the more money you have, the more obligation you are under to help poorer people. In these circumstances of extreme differences in wealth, the help of the more wealthy person is most often in monetary form. For example, society in general believes that someone like BIll Gates has a responsibility to donate some of his excessive wealth to children in underdeveloped countries, who have become orphaned due to the AIDS virus that took the lives of their parents. Through no fault of their own, these orphans were born into an impoverished and lonely life, and given society's general belief in some sort of equality, assistance should be offered to these children.

While Gates may be regarded as obligated to send money to organizations working with orphans in Africa, he may not be obligated to assist someone who has brought poverty upon themselves. Consider a man raised in a good home as a child, who eventually lost everything he had to a drug habit he developed. While Gates chose to work hard and build a successful company, the drug addict decided to throw his life away and let his addiction take over. Gates should not have the responsibility to help a man who had the same opportunities as Gates as a child, but chose to take a different, albeit detrimental, road.

Whether or not the rich have a obligation to help the poor depends on the circumstances that caused an individual to end up in a situation of poverty. Orphans in Africa obviously have not made any conscious decisions to live the way they do; their situation is due to political, economical, and health issues, much greater than them and beyond their control. People who are in poverty-stricken scenarios out of no fault of their own, have warranted aid from more well-off people. However, if someone has brought poverty on themselves, as in the example of the drug addict, someone who has worked hard for their success and wealth in life, does not have a responsibility to spend their hard work on people that have made poor life decisions. In general, society recognizes a responsibility to help less fortunate people, but not necessarily a responsibility to help people who have consciously made poor decisions that have led them to their state of poverty.

Score: 2.5/6

-The problem with your supporting paragraph is that is relies upon the assumption that society expects rich people to donate to the poor. This is a fine assumption, however you do not provide any proof of this assumption. Further you as the reader to make another assumption in that Bill Gates donates out of responsibility and not out of kindness.
-I understand your refuting argument, however you say that Gates should not have the responsibility when in fact he does. Society requires that the rich pay taxes so that welfare can be given to the poor (regardless of what circumstances made them poor). Because I can immediately disqualify your refuting argument, it weakens your essay. Remember that your arguments must make sense in the real-world.
-Your resolution paragraph is ok, considering the arguments you have made. However, it does not actually work for the reasons stated previously.

With great power comes great responsibility. Many individuals argue that the acquisition of wealth brings on it many new chores ranging from financial protection to charity. such at Bono, the lead singer of U2, argue that the wealthy must bring it upon themselves to aid the less fortunate. This aid can be in many forms but in the end, continually boils down down to monetary contribution.

This obligatory force is extremely prevalent in professional athletics. The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) in 2005 underwent a huge initiative to enforce the top 10 male and female tennis players to not only to donate part of their tournament prize money to charity but to start up a charity of their own. Their reason being that these individuals are not only wealthy but are ionic role models for aspiring athletes and youth worldwide. The way they spend utilize their wealth influences the way that their idols will choose to spend their money and as a result, most of the world's best tennis players dedicate a substantial portion of time and money to helping out as many underprivileged and undeveloped nations as they can. Today, foundations such as the Roger Federer Foundation and the Serena Williams foundation generate in excess of $1 million annually towards developing nations worldwide.

While wealth can bring on obligatory actions towards the underprivileged, there are instances in which the the rich are entitled to all their spoils. The political platforms of the Republican Party base much of their policies off this principle. Lower taxes are privatized health care are two of the major campaigns principles that demonstrate how citizens in the upper income bracket have no obligation to surrender part of their earnings to the poor. Republican spokespeople such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter argue that each citizen is born with an equal chance to obtain wealth and as a result, the individuals that do should not be forced to part with any of their wealth, especially if they receive nothing in return.

The debate of the financial responsibilities towards the poor has spanned almost as long as monetary class divisions have existed. However, history has provided a rough guideline to determine when wealth brings on responsibility. The rich have a responsibility to help the poor only when they are viewed as a public role model whose actions influence the aspiring youth. In this way, financial responsibility and benevolence will be displayed in a widespread and positive manner which will in turn benefit the entire community.

The rich have a responsibility to help the poor

If humans are all created equal, should those who are wealthier surrender part of their fortunes to those who are in need? Millions in the world suffer from a lack of human's basic needs, including shelter, food, and water. However, there is a fraction of the world that experience such wealth, they would collectively be able to rid the world from these terrible problems. A recent stat stated that two trillion dollars (a mere fraction of something frillious, such as the entertainment industry) would supply all of the world with healthy water for life. With results such as this possible, those who are wealthy should be donating parts of their fortune to the poor. An example of someone doing this is Ying-Men Win, a wealthty business owner in China. Ying-Men Win lives a very lucurious life, however, he has recently stated that upon his death, he plans to donate 100% of his fortunes to the poor. As can be seen with this example, when one has the financial means, they should aid those in need.

Although there are times when giving to the poor is supported, other ciricumstances call for a more selfish approach. Terrell Owens, an NFL wide-reciever is one of sport's most famous names. Terrell's lifestyle consists of playing football, and spending vasts amount of money on things such as cars, clothes, and homes. When asked why he doesn't give to the poor he responds, "I got to where I am now by myself; why shouldn't others do the same? I am going to live my life to the fullest with what I have earned." As can been seen with this example, there are times when maybe one should take care of themself first.

Although it is difficult to decide when, and when not, the rich should help the poor, a key determinant should be that upon dieing, the wealthy should donate there wealthy to those in need. Ying-Men Win is a prime example of someone wealthy who is going to provide great financial assistance to the poor upon his death. Terrell Owens, however, demonstrates that one should enjoy what they have earned in their lifetime. The rich should live their lives to fullest, however when they die, as the saying goes, "you can't take it with you when you die," so they should help out those who need it the most.