The essay speculates on the controversial principle of richness: the author argues that richness is immoral until at least one suffering person is on Earth. In that way, the fortune is expected to be sacrificed for the benefit of those less fortunate. He also claims that his arguments are not about how much money each person should earn, but what they should do with the money after they have earned it. The author explains that despite giving up wealth in a gesture of altruism is usually lauded as ethical, the current social and cultural environment prioritizes materialism, which leads to the high global level of inequality.
As a result, being affluent is immediately branded as immoral because the wealthy person can afford various excesses. In contrast, poor people often should suffer from the inability even to be healthy. Based on that, the author argues that rich people should get rid of their wealth for the poor ones.
Wealth redistribution is proposed as a possible solution to the high level of current inequality. The author raises the question of merit when it comes to evaluating one’s wealth status: “Regardless of whether you have earned it, to what degree are you morally permitted to retain it?” (Smith, 2017, para. 7). In that way, the author proposes that wealth should be distributed based on moral qualities. However, after considering its implications, one will have to agree that the proposed strategy will not work due to the lack of internal change that it will produce. Even if people from poor backgrounds will obtain the money, they will not manage them.
The redistribution of wealth will not imply the transfer of skills in financial management to the impoverished; thus, people who will obtain that redistributed money will likely waste them. The idea of redistributing wealth based on unclear moral qualities instead of clearly defined skills will likely fail.
The author argues that those who earn much money must pay for those who are not such fortunate. “If you have got $3 billion, and you give away 1, you are still incredibly wealthy, and thus still harming many people by hoarding wealth. You have to get rid of all of it”, explains (Smith, 2017, para. 5). Still, it is unethical and even wrong to leave the own richness from the individual perspective. As mentioned, individual skills cannot be transferred with money; one must learn them before being able to earn money. From that perspective, people who were able, based on their skills, to earn money should get rid of them for the sake of those who do not have those skills. Roughly speaking, one can see that it is similar to mere robbery.
In conclusion, though the problem of inequality is real and dangerous, it cannot be solved by simple redistribution of affluence. All people are different in attitudes, skills, and opportunities, and those differences cannot be solved by simple redistribution, only by education. Wealthy people earn their money primarily due to their skills, efforts, and persistence, and taking away their money is similar to robbery. Responsible management of the global capital with the focus on supporting those in need while encouraging development is a much better proposal. For this reason, creating equal opportunities and improving the quality of education will be required rather than using simple strategies such as redistribution of wealth.
Reference
Smith, A. Q. (2017). It’s basically just immoral to be rich. Current Affairs. Web.