The topic of the article is to investigate and analyze the article “What Should a Billionaire Give – And What should you? by Singer. This explains Singer's argument that the rich have an obligation to support the poor. Additionally, he explains why the world needs charity and private donations and why the U.S. government can't handle it all. Additionally, the journal explains Singer's opinions and reservations about the idea that every citizen should give their fair share of donations (Singer 14). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Brief Analysis of Singer's Article According to Peter Singer, the wealthy have an obligation to donate to people who need help. However, it would be morally wrong not to help if the rich have the opportunity. It has become a question of morality rather than charity. He emphasizes that donations intended to reduce global poverty should no longer be considered charity or an act of generosity. For example, this would be a case of increasing moral decadence of the rich to live a comfortable life while other humans elsewhere are dying of preventable diseases or simply cannot afford a basic meal. According to him, Western colonization was partly responsible for the desperate situation we experience today in the Third World. Furthermore, he argues that the economic policies of rich countries literally make it difficult for developing countries to have a significant economic impact (Singer 22). Peter Singer argues that governments should not impose huge taxes on their citizens in order to make donations. Instead, it should facilitate or convince the wealthy to donate voluntarily. Thus, he emphasizes that private charity has a stronger moral value than government donations. According to him, charity should result from moral conviction rather than compulsion. So, if the government incentivizes its citizens to donate, then the moral purpose of charity is technically lost. However, the problem is rather debatable. This concerns questions of morals and ethics. On the one hand, people are responsible for their 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 is beyond the bounds of morality. Essentially, the United States government will be doing its citizens a great disservice if it commits to providing all the aid the world needs. Although it can liaise with developing country governments, the United States government should not use citizens' taxes to provide all aid. Essentially, huge taxes would make it impossible to run businesses successfully in the United States. This will render the principle of social capitalism ineffective (Schaler 82). Everyone should make efforts to reduce poverty in 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 getting his clothes dirty in the bond. However, if fifty children are drowning and there are fifty adults to help them, each adult should strive to do their fair share. According to Singer, this is not always the case, as the United States generally gives more than its fair share. For example, he considers it exploitative that the Americans contribute 36% of international aid while other powerful economies give it..