When someone works hard to earn their money, I believe it depends on that person how they want to spend it. According to Peter Singer (“The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” in The New World Reader by G. Muller, pp. 361-368), it is immoral to spend money needlessly when that money can be used to help a starving child. I don't agree with this statement. I will discuss my opinion on poverty and how I believe spending money unnecessarily is not immoral. I believe that if some have worked hard for their money, they have every right to spend it on whatever they want. However, I believe that people who earn enough money should give something back to those less fortunate. Saying that spending money unnecessarily is immoral brings to mind a question; what exactly is considered superfluous when it comes to spending money? This question has a wide variety of answers. Some people may argue that something like a girl doing her nails is unnecessary, while others may say that owning several cars and houses is unnecessary. Personally I believe that neither is superfluous. I believe that if someone wants something, even if they already have an item similar to what they want and have worked hard for their money, they should be able to get it and not be considered an immoral person. When you work hard for your money, you work hard to spend the money on yourself and not to give it all away, even though I believe you should give some of it away. I believe that people who have enough for themselves should give back to those in need. But this begs the question: what exactly is enough? For me a person has enough money when he has enough to survive and a little more for other things. Once a person has this, I believe they can have… middle of paper… that governments want poverty. When a country has a lot of poverty in the eyes of the government it means that it is weak. When a country is weak this makes it easier for it to be controlled. I believe this is why poverty is increasing today. I believe that Western countries today purposely keep third world countries in poverty, despite what they might say. Countries like America claim to help poor countries, but we rarely see any kind of change. I believe this is because Western countries have claimed many poor countries as their territory and one of the ways to prevent rebellion and maintain control is to keep the country and the people in it poor and hungry. Keeping people poor makes them more grateful when the dominant country actually gives to them. The poor people of the country see it as kindness when in reality it is just a strategy.