Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

The more money people have, the more they should give a way to charity.

The rich/The financially advantaged/crippled population nowadays often face a dilemma when
becoming richer and richer. Some from low socio-economic background may contend that the
more money the privileged have the more devotion they are supposed to make while others
oppose. From my own perspective, although the rich/the high income group/ should contribute to
charity as their responsibility, it is neither rational nor fair to enforce a positive correlation
between their contribution and their own level of wealth.
people with more money should not be forced to devote more to charity.
Admittedly, richer people are usually expected to make more devotions to charity. One rationale
behind such expectation is their superior status of wealth. Since the basic lifestyle of rich people
is secured/assured while that of the deprived isn’t, for the sake of social equality it seems more
important for them to help the needed rather than living a luxurious lifestyle. For example, Bill
Gates does not need to worry about putting bread on the table/making ends meet; in contrast,
millions of homeless are still struggling on the poverty line. In a society represents equality, such
figures are reasonably expected to help the needed with their financial strength.
例子+回证
因果关系的类比
每句话应该是在前一句的基础上让表意更加清楚
Build an argument
Per se=itself
Albeit such stance is not without ground, it is too irrational to force people with more money to
give more to charity. The policy/proposal/approach per se may undermine their willingness per se
to contribute to charity. As they have their own free will and right to decide how to spend/allocate
their money, when violated, they may no longer have the motivation to contribute to charity and
such reluctance could further undermine other causes of goodwill. One simple example is that
instead of devoting to charity, Elon Mask chose to invest more to exploring Mars, which could
turn a new page for mankind in history. If he is forced to spare the budget for charity work, not
only would this damage his ambition/pursuit/plan but also cause some dismay.
Sufficed to say, it is intuitive to take contributing as the responsibility of people with more money.
Nonetheless, I argue this cannot become an excuse to impose such positive correlation onto them.
Only if their free will and basic right is respected first would they make more devotions
voluntarily.