Like @Jadyclem think that 'obligation' is too strong but they definitely do have a moral and ethical responsibility to help others less fortunate.
I think the question would have been better worded as 'Do people with more have an ethical and moral responsibility to help those with less'
It's not actually about 'rich' and 'poor' as both these terms are relative to one another so its more about people doing whatever they can to help those less fortunate.
But its not just about people helping each other. There are organisations and corporations with absolutely huge cash reserves. Apple's cash reserve was reported for 2018 Q1 as $285.1 billion ........read it again. $285.1 billion US dollars. Now by anyones estimation, that is a huge sum of money laying around, and whilst I'm in no way anti-capitalist, this amount of cash laying in a bank account doing nothing is extreme vulgarity.
For a little perspective, according to UNICEF over 29,000 children die each day due to simply preventable causes. There are 1.3 billion people in this world living in extreme poverty classed as living on under $1.25 per day. 2300 people around the world die each day of Diarrhea! They are part of 750 million people around the world who don't have access to clean drinking water, decent sanitation or hand hygiene products like soap!
Now remembering these facts, how much could that $285 billion USD go towards helping alleviate these problems? But there are more than just Apple, look at this list of the top 5 US companies with cash parked overseas in bank accounts:-
And what about nations?
The United States last year felt it necessary to sign into law, a budget of $700 billion dollars for defence spending in 2018, and for more shocking info on how much nations spend on the military, read this:-
Even organisations like the Catholic Church which has vast sums of cash flowing through it does no where near enough to help the world's many issues caused by the current financial models.
Until we can change these current financial systems, hopefully using Blockchain technologies and asking people to alter their attitudes to consumerism, people will continue to die directly and indirectly from abject poverty.
How disgusting is that in 2018 and this age of advanced technology and wealth?
Since writing this. I've changed my mind. The rich individuals, companies, nations and organisations definitely fucking DO have an obligation to help the less fortunate dying from a simple case of the shits.
What do you think mate as you asked the question ?
NO one is obligated to help anybody. It is just a privilege that many take advantage of, feeling it's a right.
Obligation is so much of a duty. Why should it be the duty of the rich to help the poor? What happened to the hands of the poor? Why couldn't he work as hard and make same money too?
I have never considered anyone helping me in any way to be an obligation. I only feel it is a privilege. When something becomes an obligation, when you decide to stop, there is a deep sense of guilt that you feel. Simply because it is an obligation.
It is never an obligation to help the poor.
It's not an obligation, you can force anyone to help others. But it's a nice gesture, I can't deny that.
As a newbie Steemian, I got a lot of support from others and I've said to myself once I get enough and I can afford it, I'm going to support others to give back to the community. And before I've reached the minnow status, which means 500 SP, I made a delegation to a newbie, who was struggling the same way I was at the beginning.
These things must come from your heart and it feels good to help.
It's depends on so many social things that, the rich people is obedient to help the poor people all the time or sometimes or not at all. I marked the word "Sometimes" as bold in my first sentence, cause my answer is rich people sometime needs to help the poor.
Helping the poor all the time!😳
People who are rich shouldn't help the poor every time. Think an environment five thousands people, where most of the people like three thousands people are financially poor. There rich people are able to help those poor people and they are helping them. Now the poor will think that they are getting enough what they need, so, what is the necessity to work hard? I'm trying to say that, poor will be more poor as they're getting everything in every time from others though they are not working hard.
Helping poor people not at all!😕
It is the opposed to humanity not to help others. And if the inhumanity remains in the society people can not live together. Crime will increase in the society. There will be unrest in society. Society will be destroyed as the crime rise.
Helping the poor people sometimes.😃
As there is problems in both not to help the poor and help poor every time, so, rich people's needed to help them sometimes. We are made for each other. Poor people can be poor outside, but rich inside. He can helpful for a rich at any time. I think one is rich because someone else is poor. So rich people sometimes need to help the poor.
No as why must they. They have no obligation just because they have money.
It is their choice and I think I would support my friends first before I helped the poor. I was poor once and had no help but that doesn't mean I don't have a heart.
I support an elderly couple in meals on wheels so they get a hot meal every day. I don't care what color they are as long as they have one hot meal together each day.
I think it all depends on how rich is rich. If you are stinking rich then I don't see a problem doing something, but have seen charities abuse funds so maybe I would do something but I wont just give. Maybe a scholarship to a school or something so there is a benefit for someone to better themselves.
I would say NO.
But most rich people will help poor people for some pragmatic reasons. If poor people are so oppressed by dreadful living conditions, violence will increase, and rich people will be more likely to become targeted.
Helping someone is not an obligation. Obligation is something you must do of which if you fail to do it there will be consequences. The rich are not obligated to help the poor and you don't need to be rich before you can help someone.
Helping someone is a personal decision you have to make. You help those you see in need if you have the means not because it's your obligation but because you see the need to help them and decide to help them because you have a good heart. It's only those that have good hearts that can have compassion enough to help those in need if they have the means. They help not because it's their obligation but because they have kind hearts
It's a question of morality.
Let us not hide the reality, do not hide the truth, do not judge the situation and accept with courage, that the rich, the rich do not care about the poor or the poor. It should also be noted that the poor, too, are not interested in the rich.
Whether in our human relations or in relations between countries, self-interest is the only motivation that counts and wanting to change what is natural does not work.
Education has tried to change this without much success by making us believe that the greatest love is to give to the other. In fact, it is not love, it is self-forgetfulness, self-consciousness, not loving oneself. This doctrine has made and continues to wreak havoc on our planet, to divide and kill each other.
To give to the other, is to be controlled, to manipulate by the other, which receives him without giving, without doing any action, except by using words to make the other feel guilty of giving him what he wants .
I think if the rich were to really be obligate to help the poor, it would be just dumping money to the people. I think what could be done is like what Bill Gate is currently doing in his life. He is constantly finding new solution to help the different communities around the world. Research is something the poor can't do.
One of the most important things that I think we should do is to build more and more schools and educational facilities for the poor. I think the rich can help the poor this way rather than just providing aid without knowing what happens to all those cash. Usually it goes to corrupt people.
Another situation that would happen is that, imagine the poor people who suddenly get a lot of cash but do not know how to deal with it. It's better to provide them with the know how and built the facilities to create the super brain factory. It's good that the rich help the poor too, if not who else would help them.
Rich individuals don't have an "obligation" to "encourage" poor people, and it is to some degree erroneous to portray the circumstance thusly.
A general public or government may have (and, I think, has) an obligation to see that it gives the most astounding achievable insignificant way of life for all nationals.
This requires cash.
The main route for a general public or government to get cash is to force imposes on its nationals.
Legitimately connected, the well off would settle more in government expenses than poor people - not on the grounds that they are rich, but rather in light of the fact that appropriate charges would take from every citizen a similar extent of their cash. The issue is, how is a duty "legitimately" connected?
To my psyche, an assessment that charges everybody at a similar rate, without any findings or exclusions or credits, is the most attractive. Say, 20%. Everybody pays 20% of their salary to the administration (perhaps give everybody an underlying reasoning of $10,000 per individual, and expense everything over that underlying conclusion). Somebody who wins $2 million every year will cover $400,000 in government expenses, and a man who acquires $40,000 every year will pay $8,000. Each pays a similar rate.
(I'm wagering the person who acquires $2 million is better prepared to make good on his government obligations than the person who wins $40,000.)
Consequently, the legislature furnishes every citizen and their families with a similar dimension of social administrations - human services, police/fire security, and so on.
On the off chance that a subject doesn't care for such a framework, they are free (in any event under our arrangement of government) to either leave the nation or work to change the framework.