Poverty is the lack of funds to pay for basic needs. The lack of basic needs in which are used to survive means this is a problem with debatable solutions. Peter Singer has initiated an argument over the solution to poverty in what he and many others feel is a suitable course of action. Peter’s argument is this “The formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away”. This would have everyone in the world not in poverty donating one third of all wealth to poverty, as that is the average percentage of money spent on luxuries per the average family or person. The pros of this argument would be equalization of the economy and the curing of poverty. The cons of Peter Singer’s argument are taking …show more content…
Theoretically, many arguments would say people don’t need a brand new bed where they dont wake up with cricks in their neck, but if one spends their 40 hours a week working they will feel entitled to reap rewards. In many cases even those in poverty own items in which represent a standard of living far outweighing that of the average americans definition. In "Poverty in America Is Greatly Exaggerated." they ask the average americans definition of poverty in which the response was “the lack of basic necessities”. Poverty in America is near non-existent as many of the people in poverty own mobile phones and a living standard far higher than what most americans think is the definition of poverty. (Sheffield 2015) This contradicts the amount of poverty in America allowing people to see vast difference in how they view poverty. This would Qualify with Peter Singer’s argument as there is simply less poverty in the world than said. This would mean to the argument that less money is needed, therefore, we should not donate ⅓ percentage out of our income but a lesser amount such as ⅙ or possibly 1/7 of income given to