The object of the document is to investigate and analyze the article "What should a billionaire give and what should you give?" of Singer. Explain Singer's argument regarding the obligation of the rich to support poor people. It also establishes why the world needs charity and private donations and why the US government can't handle everything. Furthermore, the document explains Singer's opinions and concerns about the idea that every citizen should give his or her fair share of donations (Singer 14). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayShort analysis of Singer's articleAccording to Peter Singer, rich people have an obligation to give to people who need help. However, it would be morally wrong not to help the rich if they had the chance. It has become a question of moral standing rather than charity. Emphasizes that donations intended to alleviate world poverty should no longer be considered charity or an act of generosity. For example, this would be a case of the rich's increasing moral decadence in living a comfortable life when other humans elsewhere are dying of preventable diseases or simply cannot afford a basic meal. According to him, Western colonization is partly responsible for the desperate situation we live in today in the third world. Furthermore, he argues that the economic policies of wealthy nations literally make it difficult for the developing world to have a significant economic impact (Singer 22). Peter Singer argues that governments should not impose huge taxes on their citizens for donating. It should instead facilitate or convince the rich to make donations voluntarily. Therefore, he emphasizes that private charity has a stronger moral standing than government donations. According to him, charity should be dictated by moral conviction rather than coercion. Therefore, if the government pushes its citizens to donate, the moral purpose behind the charity is technically lost. However, the issue is quite controversial. It is about moral and ethical issues. On the one hand, people are responsible for their own wealth and it is unethical to tell them what to do with it. On the other hand, avoiding the possibility of helping people or even saving someone's life crosses the line of morality. In essence, the United States government will be doing its citizens a disservice if it commits to providing all the help the world needs. While it can provide the link to developing country governments, the U.S. government should not use popular taxes to provide all aid. Essentially, huge taxes would make it impossible to successfully run businesses in America. It will render the principle of social capitalism ineffective (Schaler 82). Everyone should work to alleviate poverty around the world. There should be no spectators. Peter Singer gives the analogy of a child drowning in a shallow pond. The author argues that the human benefits of saving a drowning child would be worth dirtying someone's shoes. However, if fifty children drown and there are fifty adults to help them, every adult should strive to do their fair share. According to Singer, this is not always the case as the United States usually gives more than its fair share. For example, he considers it exploitative that Americans contribute 36% of international aid while other powerful economies contribute less than 2%. According to him, the concept of fair sharing has been abused by allowing the United States to do almost anything.