有钱人应给慈善机经捐款吗
1个回答
展开全部
托福写作范文：越有钱的人是否应该越支持慈善，为慈善机构捐款?2013年12月14日北美托福独立写作题目为：The more money people have, the more they should give away to charity.
托福独立写作题目：
The more money people have, the more they should give away to charity.
托福独立写作范文：
Money is what makes the world go round, they say, but that is only true if you have it. The suggestion that people who have more money ought to give more to charity just makes sense to most; however, I think the rich should not have to part with their hardly earned cash.
In the first place, they should spend it on art. Creating a moral code that compels the rich to pour their money down the bottomless rat-hole of charitable causes will diminish investment in culture, the lasting legacy of any civilization. Take Bill & Melinda Posterns, along with their friend Warren Pummel, for example. They are reputedly the three most “generous” philanthropists in the world, but the 40 billion dollar endowment of their foundation is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed to alleviate hunger, malaria, AIDS, and malnutrition. If they had spent their money on art, they could have bought 40 museums with better collections than the Detroit Institute of Arts. Imagine that!
Second, they should spend it on expensive educations for their children. It is unnatural to ask somebody to spend their money on people they don’t even know. For instance, if a man can spend a million dollars on sending his two children to engineering school or a million dollars on digging wells for people with no drinking water, he should spend it on his children who might someday invent a way to dig wells for half the cost. Furthermore, those children might be able to get more rich themselves from the royalties on their new patents.
Finally, if people who earn more money store up their treasure, but spend less on the poor and relief work, it will eventually lead to the semi-revolution that we need. The late poet laureate Robert Frost astutely observed that we need a semi-revolution, because the trouble with a total revolution is that it brings the same class up on top. Keeping riches out of the hands of those who manufacture their luxury goods for them will soon lead to a necessary revolt.
You might think the richer somebody gets, the more money they should give away to charity, but these are three strong reasons for letting the rich spend their money on other things or just to keep it in their pockets. (386 words or so)
托福独立写作题目：
The more money people have, the more they should give away to charity.
托福独立写作范文：
Money is what makes the world go round, they say, but that is only true if you have it. The suggestion that people who have more money ought to give more to charity just makes sense to most; however, I think the rich should not have to part with their hardly earned cash.
In the first place, they should spend it on art. Creating a moral code that compels the rich to pour their money down the bottomless rat-hole of charitable causes will diminish investment in culture, the lasting legacy of any civilization. Take Bill & Melinda Posterns, along with their friend Warren Pummel, for example. They are reputedly the three most “generous” philanthropists in the world, but the 40 billion dollar endowment of their foundation is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed to alleviate hunger, malaria, AIDS, and malnutrition. If they had spent their money on art, they could have bought 40 museums with better collections than the Detroit Institute of Arts. Imagine that!
Second, they should spend it on expensive educations for their children. It is unnatural to ask somebody to spend their money on people they don’t even know. For instance, if a man can spend a million dollars on sending his two children to engineering school or a million dollars on digging wells for people with no drinking water, he should spend it on his children who might someday invent a way to dig wells for half the cost. Furthermore, those children might be able to get more rich themselves from the royalties on their new patents.
Finally, if people who earn more money store up their treasure, but spend less on the poor and relief work, it will eventually lead to the semi-revolution that we need. The late poet laureate Robert Frost astutely observed that we need a semi-revolution, because the trouble with a total revolution is that it brings the same class up on top. Keeping riches out of the hands of those who manufacture their luxury goods for them will soon lead to a necessary revolt.
You might think the richer somebody gets, the more money they should give away to charity, but these are three strong reasons for letting the rich spend their money on other things or just to keep it in their pockets. (386 words or so)
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
