Abraham Lincoln once said "you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich". In today's society the division of class is becoming ever more evident. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. If this is true, then individuals apart of the upper class have a responsibility as human beings to distribute some of their wealth amongst the lower class. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States of America is due to unpaid medical bills. Many American citizens do not get the medical attention they require because they do not have insurance or are unable to afford the cost of medical services. President Obama took notice to this and to the declining state of healthcare in the United States and embarked on a mission to reform healthcare. His administration legislated the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010 in efforts to better the state of the health care system. Expanding Medicaid eligibility and subsidizing insurance premiums are among the many new pieces of legislation brought into affect. Another important aspect of this policy is individuals belonging to high income tax brackets are required to pay a new Medicare tax. The money collected in taxes from wealthy individuals will be used by the government to fund Medicaid programs and subsidize insurance programs for individuals who cannot afford medical care. Individuals from the upper class will not face economic uncertainties from this new tax, thus it is justifiable that the American government tax these individuals in order to adequately provide for the underprivileged individuals of society.

If wealthy individuals have a responsibility to help the poor, then should wealthy nations have a responsibility to help underprivileged nations? Wealthier nations should help poverty-stricken nations only after they are able to provide for their citizens. One of President Obama's platform goals when running for office in 2008 was to double America's foreign aid by the end of his four year term in efforts to improve America's tarnished image around the world. Although this was an important goal, this was prior to the current recession. The recession caused a plummet in the American economy and resulted in many Americans losing their jobs and homes. Many Americans struggled to make ends meet. President Obama was forced to reconsider his ambitious foreign aid policy and make sure the American government was able to provide a safe and stable life for its citizens. The government took responsibility for its citizens and decided to use the some of the money put aside for foreign aid and implement an economic stimulus in hopes to improve the economy. When a nation does not have the means to provide for itself, aiding the impoverished cannot be justified.

The circumstances surrounding when the rich have a responsibility to help the poor are not trivial. The decisive factor for when the wealthy have a responsibility to help the poor is as follow: if the wealthy (individuals or nations) are not facing unstable economic circumstances than they have a responsibility to help those in need. President Obama took this upon himself and his administration when implementing the PPACA. The wealthy are not facing unstable financial circumstances, and as a result they should be taxed in order to provide medical care for those who cannot afford it. However, if the wealthy are facing troubled and uncertain economic circumstances they do not have a responsibility to aid the poor. This held true during the recent recession. President Obama was forced to reduce foreign aid in order to stabilize the American economy and ensure that American citizens were properly provided for.

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, yet somehow society sustains itself and people are forced to life with what they have. In all societies there exists social classes, and separation among the people. As human beings, it is in our nature to care for one another, and come together in times of peril. Sometimes, the rich have a moral responsibility to use their money and power to lend a hand to the poor. This is especially evident when looking at the cooperation between rich and poor nations. In January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck the poor nation of Haiti. Within hours the US, Canada, and many other first world nations, were getting together teams to assist in the aftermath of the earthquake. Not only was physical aid sent to Haiti, to help the injured and trapped, there was also millions of dollars of foreign aid sent, through government funding, and through generous donations, to help rebuild Haiti. Without this help Haiti would have never been able to begin re-building after the earthquake, and the death toll would have been substantially higher, due to the diminished living conditions after the disaster. This shows that in times of disaster, richer nations have a moral obligation to assist by whichever means available, in order to protect their fellow man.

However, sometimes the poor are involved in activities and habits that no matter what help is provided, it will not be effective, and often will be a waste of resources. These are dire situations, but drug addiction can take these tolls on an individual. Kurt Cobain, a rich musician, despite having more than enough money to help himself through a heroin addiction, he still succumbed to its inevitable fate. This remains proof, that the rich cannot help even the poorest of drug addicts. Addicts must want to change their behaviour, and demonstrate so by checking themselves into a not-for profit rehabilitation centre. Money just simply is not enough to fix this ‘disease’ and responsibility does not fall on the rich to help the poor in this situation.

As humans, the choice of whether or not to help someone can be an extremely tough decision to make. However, it stands to reason that a moral responsibility is bestowed upon the rich during unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances, such as the earthquake in Haiti. Natural disasters bring pain and suffering to large populations, and the rich should provide the helping hand. On the other hand, when the poor are engaging in self destructive and unpromising behaviours, such as drug addiction, the responsibility shifts towards the individual them self. The money provided by the rich would be unable to help the poor in any constructive way, and thus a wasted resource.

As children we are all taught the golden rule; do unto to others, as you would have unto yourself. People who have experienced great successes (such as wealth, ownership, and power) in their lives must abide by this rule and help others who are not as fortunate. Wealthy individuals have an obligation to help others find and obtain the necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing, and access to education. In times of great need and devastation it is more important that the wealthy band together in order to help those who have been stricken by poverty or even worse death. For example, Haiti (the poorest country in the Western hemisphere) has always received government aid from more prominent and wealthy first world countries. However, this was most evident when the earthquake struck Haiti in January of 2010. After news of this natural disaster traveled around the world, wealthy countries took it upon themselves to raise funds to help Haiti recover. The United States and Canada both held telethons, which raised thousands of dollars to be donated to Haiti. The Canadian government also vowed to match each donation made a Canadian citizen, once again increasing the funds that went to help Haiti. It is evident from this example that the rich have a responsibility to help poorer individuals.

While natural disasters and crises might cause wealthy people to group together, there may be circumstances when this is not the best course of action. For example, North Korea is a very secretive and communist country. North Korea doesn’t allow any foreign aid and does not allow their own people to travel outside their country. But many North Koreans live below the poverty line and are in desperate need of outside aid. However, wealthy individuals are unlikely to give aid because they are unsure of exactly where their money is going to and if it is even reaching those who need it most.

It is most often the case that those who possess the wealth to help others will dispense money to help those less fortunate this may not always be the case. It is the responsibility of the rich to help the poor when they cannot be sure of where their money is going and if it going only to help sustain corrupt governments. This was exemplified by North Korea and aid is unlikely to be given because of the financial mystery of the country. However, if it is evident where the money will go and it, then wealthy people do have a obligation to help those in need. For example, Haiti is finally starting to re-cooperate because of the aid that many countries gave.

Naturally, in any society, there exists a division between the various classes, caused by inequitable distribution of income and opportunity. This variability in present in developed nations such as Canada and the United States, as well as developing nations such as Ghana and Guatemala. The more affluent members of society tend to have very little trouble acquiring the basic necessities of life, such as shelter and food, while the poorer members may spend every cent they have covering only the basics. Because this gap exists, it is often necessary for the rich to assist in providing the less fortunate population with the means of attaining some of the essentials of a quality life. Taxing income is a means of taking proportionally equally from both the rich and the poor in society in order to fund the government to maintain upkeep of the country, including infrastructure development, and running government programs such as welfare and public healthcare. On the other hand, by taxing goods and services a government can take a more progressive approach from garnering larger proportions from the more affluent population, who tend to have a greater disposable income to spend on non-essentials. In Ontario, the recently implemented HST tax has made changes including reducing taxes on basic items such as groceries, while increasing the tax on luxury goods and services such as cosmetics and salons. This change helps to take more money from the rich, in order to put into programs which will help the whole of society.

In certain cases, it cannot be expected from the rich to simply give to the poorer members of society. In Canada, in order to receive unemployment payments, it is necessary to prove that the individual seeking assistance has justifiable reasoning, and is actively searching for work. This helps to ensure that money from tax-payers, which is derived for the majority from the wealthier portion of society, is preferentially given to poorer people who have shown that they are actively looking to contribute to their society, and to help themselves to finance their own lives.

In order for any society to run smoothly, it is important that the basic rights and necessities of it's citizens of well looked after. One way to help achieve this, and to help close the gap between classes in society, is to take from the rich and give to the poor. This helps all members of society, rich and poor, by decreasing crime rates, and achieving overall satisfaction with government. However, although it is often necessary for the rich to help the poor, it is not the responsibility of the wealthier members of society to support those who are not working to help themselves. If the poor are not actively working to achieve independence and self-reliance, simply offering financial assistance will not help to fix the problem, and issues related to the income gap will continue to exist.