We see it daily on television, online and through the proverbial grapevine; our country's wealthy elites ask audiences to reach under chairs to find the keys to a new car or invite strangers on stage to exchange a trivial answer for a new living room entertainment system. These celebrities, such as Oprah, Ellen, and numerous others, represent the disparity between rich and poor in the United States and the ease with which many are able to give away much of their wealth in the blink of an eye while hundreds of thousands of other Americans can hardly to make ends meet by paying bills and feeding their families. These celebrities, as well as their famous peers, have the ability to give away much of their wealth at no cost to themselves, but what is often seen is a lack of charitable outcomes relative to the monetary input; is it a problem? Peter Singer's view that wealth, apart from money earmarked for basic necessities, should be given to the less fortunate is admirable and should certainly be followed by today's elites. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay America is certainly wealthy compared to other countries globally, but alongside this wealth, a disparity between the haves and the have- This phenomenon is seen on a larger scale than in many world economies. Therefore the richest of the rich, the best of the best, should not hesitate to give away a large amount of money to those less fortunate. But according to Peter Singer, this money should be donated to overseas charities and recipients. That's where a qualification needs to be made; there are millions of people in America living in or near poverty, just like in other countries. Although the conditions of people in other countries may be different from those of Americans, the need for financial support in the United States is the same as in Africa, for example. Therefore, Singer's claim that “abroad” should be the destination of funds donated by the American elite is misdirected. Furthermore, it is fair to argue that celebrity earnings are their money, to be used as they choose. I've heard many stories of celebrities working extraordinarily hard to get to the point where they became celebrities, as in the case of Harry Connick Jr., a current celebrity who has attested to countless failed auditions and rejections before the "big break" came along. In this way, expecting celebrities to contribute to the lives of others may be an infringement on their enjoyment of the deserved spoils of perseverance. Yet many celebrities today owe much of their success to opportunities unavailable to most. This is another reason why charitable donations should be made by the rich, since, as Malcolm Gladwell describes in his book Outliers, success is the direct result of a series of opportunities, which he describes using cases such as the Beatles and even Bill Gates. . Speaking of the very successful computer genius Bill Gates, much of the approximately 28,000 per minute he earns consistently owes to opportunities, such as his hometown and his education. Shouldn't he reciprocate the opportunities afforded to him by granting opportunities to millions of others through substantial charitable donations? In response, he… But his contributions, according to How Much Should Millionaires Give? only amounts to about 35% of his earnings, while other less wealthy individuals like Kravinsky have managed to give away 99.99% of their wealth while maintaining a comfortable lifestyle and a substantial inheritance from..