Could anybody point out errors, please ? thank you

Should government help the poor? It seems that some parts of the question need to be defined. Who is the poor? Encyclopedias say that there are two kinds of poverty that can be measured ( clearly explained). “Relative poverty” occurs when the income is compared with an average in the neighborhood whereas “absolute poverty” is inability to afford “basic human needs including: fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter”[1]. Perhaps it’s better to refer to the former because it sounds more unambiguously. What does it mean to “help”? In fact, there are many ways of national help: direct cash, subsidies, monetary payments, vouchers, housing, medical services, protective regulations. All these forms entail compulsory paying by people who have money either due to redistributive taxes or other legal regulations( for instance: minimum wage). This is because rulers themselves have no wealth to manage. Perhaps, the above question must be elaborated as follows: should the government use its power to collect money from tax payers and give it to the people defined as “the poor” by the same administration?

Redistributing wealth can possibly meet the need of some people, For instance, if a family is not able to pay bills ,they can go to some office and get funds. In result, every family may have current water and electricity. Another example is when a public school gives milk and sandwiches for kids, so that none of the children is hungry. Thus, the society provides basic things which, according to the the Declaration of Human Rights, determine humanity and dignity.

Helping others lays also in accordance with the Christian ethics. The authority of the government ensures that these values are applied under penalty. There are some secular ethical approaches saying that people should help others for their own benefit. For example, some sociologist contend that a needy individual can be “saved” and lifted out of the poverty through proper help and he or she can become useful for the society in future.

What’ s the cost of redistributing money? First of all, people loose direct control over their wealth. History proved that the state is not as good administrator and organizer as private initiative. It is hard to avoid corruption and negligence in public sector so some of the money can be wasted. On the other hand redistribution entail high taxes which is bad for the economy. As a consequence people don’t get rich so fast as they could.

Ethical issues are always very discussable as there are many contradictory theories. For instance, Objectivists state that if we are enforced to help others we loose some strength to help close friends and family. Jesus Christ doesn’t mention that helping other people should be authorized by the government. Moreover, some sociologist and psychologists claim that direct help may deprive motivation. When one gets something for free there’s no need to strive for it.

I thing people should have a right to decide about spending their own money. Thus, they should be able to choose what help is best in a particular case. I also believe that social welfare should be provided by private organizations because it will improve effectiveness. Even if we meet basic needs of other people we don’t always dissolve their problems especially in term of of dignity and humanity. Perhaps we shouldn’t forget other values that belong to human being such as responsibility for our own acts and life, independence and freedom. Nowadays, governments tend to take control of an every aspect of life but maybe it’s not a good thing for the individual.