The Wealth in Modern Times: an Issue of Morality and Sustainability

In today’s society, there are multiple levels of wealth; the upper class, middle class, and lower class. Each of these classes spends different amounts of money and the argument is that the upper class is spending too much money on luxuries and these people are immoral and are sustainable. My opinion on this issue is that people should be able to spend money on whatever they like as they have worked for it however, I believe that they should also help the less wealthy. The side I was arguing with was disagreeing with the motion which was that extreme wealth that exists in modern times is immoral and unsustainable. I am parted in this motion as while I do believe that you should be able to spend your money however you want, I also think that the wealthy are spending incredible amounts on things they simply do not need and that money could be put to much better use.

One of the most compelling rebuttals that our team used during the debate was that the rich should be able to spend as much money as they want as in the end some of the money will go to the needy due to trickle down economics. Trickle down economy is the concept of spending money on things and that money will trickle down to the people who need it the most. For example one of the arguments that the other group used was that people spend too much money on unnecessary items and used the example of the most expensive pizza in the world which costs $2700, however, the government taxes the restaurant and some of the money goes to the employees. The money that goes to the government is then used for multiple things like pave roads and pay people and some of it goes to the people who are in need of it.

A local example of an individual who has used trickle down economy to spread his wealth is Bill Gates. He is the owner of Microsoft which is a PC software company. Bill Gates is also one of the greatest philanthropists in the world and has spent around $34 billion dollars according to the Wikipedia page on Bill Gates. He has used the concept of a trickle-down economy to spread his wealth as well as donate his money. The government allowed economic freedom and with that, Bill Gates had the freedom to spend his money on whatever he wanted which, therefore, gave other people a stepping stone in social mobility. Bill Gates has spent his money on many things however he donates and uses that money to make foundations such as the Bill & Melinda foundation which help people in poverty. The point that is trying to be conveyed in this example is that giving people economic freedom will encourage them to spend money which allows for a stepping stone in social mobility. This argument was compelling because while it gave facts there was also a story of someone life’s which could connect people on a personal level. It also shows that Bill Gates had the choice to spend his money on useless luxuries but chose to help people.

Whilst this is a valid argument it can be disputed that not all billionaires or multi-millionaires are like Bill Gates and donate large amounts of money to charities or just help society in general. There are many who even try and avoid taxes by using offshore accounts so that they can keep more of their money and therefore makes these wealthy people who spend money on ridiculous things immoral. The opposing team had a lot of effective rebuttals, however, one that I found especially tough to counter was that the rich spend millions of dollars on things they don't really need. They buy things that make them look rich and more superior however they don't really need it. Instead, that money could be put into much better use such as supporting children and families in poverty around the world. They argued that the people who spend this money are immoral and the level spending is unsustainable as it produces a lot of waste. A global example of this is how billionaires and millionaires are spending money on toys or luxuries such as cars, yachts, jets and many other unnecessary things. The money spent on these luxuries could be used to much better. For example in 10 years Lamborghini sold around 21,500 Lamborghini's and in total would cost $4,300,000,000, for that amount of money someone could build 224,352 schools in Africa. As seen in the example the money spent on these luxuries put up against what it could buy gives you a perspective of what is really spent and wasted. The argument made was exceptional as it was a statistical argument that compares and shows clearly how this money could be better spent.

This is also an emotional argument allows you to imagine the amount exactly how much money it is and what it can buy. It allows makes you feel guilty as it shows how you could have helped the less fortunate. While the argument is very good, it can be disputed that people have earned that money fairly and therefore should be able to spend it on whatever they want. There are many examples of people who went from rags to riches and had to work very hard and deserve their money and for them not to be rewarded for their hard work by getting themselves something special is daft. However, the amount of money the rich are spending on luxuries is a bit absurd and could be used better.

The opinion I have comes from both ethical, religious and ideological perspectives and so I believe that people should be able to spend their money on whatever they want. They should have economic freedom and preventing or making it immoral to spend money to treat yourself is irrational as, if you have worked hard for that money you should have it. Imagine working hard and with that hard work, you made a lot of money, with taxes already some of it is gone and then you have to pay for your bills. You have a certain amount left and if the argument is saying that it is immoral to spend it on something nice or expensive so that I can treat myself, I don’t believe that. However, I also think that people should use their money to help people and society, the rich should give more and donate more money to charities and foundations that help the less wealthy rise. This comes from a religious perspective as I am Muslim, it is a big part of the religion to give a little of your earning to the mosque so that they can help the needy. In the future, I am convinced that poverty will be decreased and the state of living will be much better for everyone, however, the steps to be taken to get to that state is a long and complicated one. There is not one answer and not all countries can do it the same as each country has a different problem with the country.

I believe that every country have the resources they need to lift their people out of poverty, they just need to utilize their resources efficiently and there needs to be less corruption. If a strong education system is implemented that teach people the skills and qualities that are needed for native businesses and enterprises the economy goes up which could help get people out of poverty. As said by the director of the Poverty Action Lab Esther Duflo “ Poverty is on the way out, slowly but surely” The role I took in the debate was looking for evidence that helped support our claims which were that spending excessive amounts of money is not immoral and is sustainable. At first, I looked for personal stories of successful people who went from rags to riches and used them as examples. In the debate I was the leader in my group, to my best of my ability tried to counter arguments that the other group was given. I think that we struggled to find counter-arguments in the later points as I felt as I was repeating the point over again and rewording it. However, I think that our group did well splitting the workload when researching and using each other points during the debate. At the end of the debate, my opinion changed slightly with the new information was revealed. My opinion at the end of the debate is that the rich should be able to spend money on luxuries, however, should also keep in mind to help and donate money to the less fortunate.