It is often argued by some masses that, the richness, as the most prominent aspect, allows an individual to assist someone in hard times. I, however, disagree with the given notion, since there are numerous ways of helping the underprivileged people, and monetary aid is certainly not the best forms of aid.
The foremost argument to support my viewpoint is that giving funding to the poor would be a rather shortsighted approach. It would satiate (cater) the needs for some time, whereas making one capable of standing on their own would be extremely advantageous for the long run. For example, providing literacy and job training is a better way of helping, as if we teach children of the slum area, with the knowledge that we have, would be unmatched to make them eligible for higher education and job prospects on the grounds of their literacy.
Secondly, a timely helping hand when a person is suffering is better than helping with wealth. For instance, in natural calamities, such as earthquakes and floods, the immediate need of people is food and medical care. Many young people and celebrities volunteered to carry food and medicines to the needy, when there was a flood in some areas of Punjab and Kerala, in 2019. In the harsh times of crises, such help outstrips any help that money can provide.
Opponents would argue that only the rich are in a position to help the poor as people need money for even the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter, because even providing schooling and job training to the destitute, needs funds. However, I still believe that the help in terms of personal effort provided by those who are, themselves, not so affluent is equally good.
In conclusion, if one is rich, he/she is in a better situation to help others, who need the money and all the things, which money can provide. Nevertheless, I reiterate that one need not be rich as help can be provided in many better ways than with money.
It is
often
argued by
some
masses that, the richness, as the most prominent aspect,
allows
an individual to assist someone in
hard
times. I,
however
, disagree with the
given
notion, since there are numerous ways of helping the underprivileged
people
, and monetary aid is
certainly
not the best forms of aid.
The foremost argument to support my viewpoint is that giving funding to the poor would be a
rather
shortsighted approach. It would satiate (cater) the
needs
for
some
time, whereas making one capable of standing on their
own
would be
extremely
advantageous for the long run.
For example
, providing literacy and job training is a
better
way of helping, as if we teach children of the slum area, with the knowledge that we have, would
be unmatched
to
make
them eligible for higher education and job prospects on the grounds of their literacy.
Secondly
, a timely helping hand when a person is suffering is
better
than helping with wealth.
For instance
, in natural calamities, such as earthquakes and floods, the immediate
need
of
people
is food and medical care.
Many
young
people
and celebrities volunteered to carry food and medicines to the needy, when there was a flood in
some
areas of Punjab and Kerala, in 2019. In the harsh times of crises, such
help
outstrips any
help
that
money
can provide.
Opponents would argue that
only
the rich are in a position to
help
the poor as
people
need
money
for even the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter,
because
even providing schooling and job training to the destitute,
needs
funds.
However
, I
still
believe that the
help
in terms of personal effort provided by those who are, themselves, not
so
affluent is
equally
good
.
In conclusion
, if one is rich, he/she is in a
better
situation to
help
others, who
need
the
money
and all the things, which
money
can provide.
Nevertheless
, I reiterate that one
need
not be rich as
help
can
be provided
in
many
better
ways than with
money
.